Ideal entry point and trajectory for C2 pedicle screw placement in basilar invagination patients with high-riding vertebral artery based on 3D computed tomography

A Novel Technique for Basilar Invagination Treatment in a Patient with Klippel-Feil Syndrome: A Clinical Example and Brief Literature Review

Objectives and Background: To present a novel technique of treatment for a patient with basilar invagination. Basilar invagination (BI) is a congenital condition that can compress the cervicomedullary junction, leading to neurological deficits. Severe cases require surgical intervention, but there is debate over the choice of approach. The anterior approach allows direct decompression but carries high complication rates, while the posterior approach provides indirect decompression and offers good stability with fewer complications. Materials and Methods: A 15-year-old boy with severe myelopathy presented to our hospital with neck pain, bilateral upper limb muscle weakness, and hand numbness persisting for 4 years. Additionally, he experienced increased numbness and gait disturbance three months before his visit. On examination, he exhibited hyperreflexia in both upper and lower limbs, muscle weakness in the bilateral upper limbs (MMT 4), bilateral hypoesthesia below the elbow and in both legs, mild urinary and bowel incontinence, and a spastic gait. Radiographs revealed severe basilar invagination (BI). Preoperative images showed severe BI and that the spinal cord was severely compressed with odontoid process. Results: The patient underwent posterior surgery with the C-arm free technique. All screws including occipital screws were inserted into the adequate position under navigation guidance. Reduction was achieved with skull rotation and distraction. A follow-up at one year showed the following results: Manual muscle testing results and sensory function tests showed almost full recovery, with bilateral arm recovery (MMT 5) and smooth walking. The cervical Japanese Orthopedic Association score of the patient improved from 9/17 to 16/17. Postoperative images showed excellent spinal cord decompression, and no major or severe complications had occurred. Conclusions: Basilar invagination alongside Klippel-Feil syndrome represents a relatively uncommon condition. Utilizing a posterior approach for treating reducible BI with a C-arm-free technique proved to be a safe method in addressing severe myelopathy. This novel navigation technique yields excellent outcomes for patients with BI.

Comparison of intraoperative CT- and cone beam CT-based spinal navigation for the treatment of atlantoaxial instability

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Due to the complexity of neurovascular structures in the atlantoaxial region, spinal navigation for posterior C1-C2 instrumentation is nowadays a helpful tool to increase accuracy of surgery and safety of patients. Many available intraoperative navigation devices have proven their reliability in this part of the spine. Two main imaging techniques are used: intraoperative CT (iCT) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).

PURPOSE

Comparison of iCT- and CBCT-based technologies for navigated posterior instrumentation in C1-C2 instability.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 81 consecutive patients from July 2014 to April 2020.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Screw accuracy and operating time.

METHODS

Patients with C1-C2 instability received posterior instrumentation using C2 pedicle screws, C1 lateral mass or pedicle screws. All screws were inserted using intraoperative imaging either using iCT or CBCT systems and spinal navigation with autoregistration technology. Following navigated screw insertion, a second intraoperative scan was performed to assess the accuracy of screw placement. Accuracy was defined as the percentage of correctly placed screws or with minor cortical breach (<2 mm) as graded by an independent observer compared to misplaced screws.

RESULTS

A total of 81 patients with C1-C2 instability were retrospectively analyzed. Of these, 34 patients were operated with the use of iCT and 47 with CBCT. No significant demographic difference was found between groups. In the iCT group, 97.7% of the C1-C2 screws were correctly inserted; 2.3% showed a minor cortical breach (<2 mm); no misplacement (>2 mm). In the CBCT group, 98.9% of screws were correctly inserted; no minor pedicle breach; 1.1% showed misplacement >2 mm. Accuracy of screw placement demonstrated no significant difference between groups. Both technologies allowed sufficient identification of screw misplacement intraoperatively leading to two screw revisions in the iCT and three in the CBCT group. Median time of surgery was significantly shorter using CBCT technology (166.5 minutes [iCT] vs 122 minutes [CBCT]; p<.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal navigation using either iCT- or CBCT-based systems with autoregistration allows safe and reliable screw placement and intraoperative assessment of screw positioning. Using the herein presented procedural protocols, CBCT systems allow shorter operating time.

Characteristics and evaluation of C1 posterior arch variation for transpedicular screw placement between patients with and without basilar invagination

BACKGROUND

C1 transpedicular screw (C1TS) placement provided satisfactory pullout resistance and 3D stability, but its application might be limited in patients with basilar invagination (BI) due to the high incidences of the atlas anomaly and vertebral artery (VA) variation. However, no study has explored the classifications of C1 posterior arch variations and investigated their indications and ideal insertion trajectories for C1TS in BI.

PURPOSE

To investigate the bony and surrounding arterial characteristics of the atlas, classify posterior arch variations, identify indications for C1TS, evaluate ideal insertion trajectories for C1TS in BI patients without atlas occipitalization (AO), and compare them with those without BI and AO as control.

METHODS

A total of 130 non-AO patients with and without BI (52 patients and 78 patients, respectively) from two medical centers were included at a 1:1.5 ratio. The posterior arch variations were assessed using a modified C1 morphological classification. Comparisons regarding the bony and surrounding arterial characteristics, morphological classification distributions, and ideal insertion trajectories between BI and control groups were performed. The subgroup analyses based on different morphological classifications were also conducted. In addition, the factors possibly affecting the insertion parameters were investigated using multiple linear regression analyses.

RESULTS

The BI group was associated with significantly smaller lateral mass height and width, sagittal length of posterior arch, pedicle height, vertical height of posterior arch, and distance between VA and VA groove (VAG) than control group. Four types of posterior arch variations with indications for different screw placement techniques were classified; Classifications I and II were suitable for C1TS. The BI cohort showed a significantly lower rate of Classification I than the control cohort. In the BI group, the subgroup of Classification I had significantly larger distance between the insertion point (IP) and inferior aspect of the posterior arch. In addition, it had the narrowest width along ideal screw trajectory, but a significantly more lateral ideal mediolateral angle than the subgroup of Classification II. Multiple linear regression indicated that the cephalad angle was significantly associated with the diagnosis of BI (B = 3.708, P < 0.001) and sagittal diameter of C1 (B = 3.417, P = 0.027); the ideal mediolateral angle was significantly associated with BMI (B = 0.264, P = 0.031), sagittal diameter of C1 (B =  - 4.559, P = 0.002), and pedicle height (B =  - 2.317, P < 0.001); the distance between the IP and inferior aspects of posterior arch was significantly associated with age (B =  - 0.002, P = 0.035), BMI (B =  - 0.007, P = 0.028), sagittal length of posterior arch (B =  - 0.187, P = 0.032), pedicle height (B =  - 0.392, P < 0.001), and middle and lower parts of posterior arch (B = 0.862, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of posterior arch variation in BI patients without AO was remarkably higher than that in control patients. The insertion parameters of posterior screws were different between the morphological classification types in BI and control groups. The distance between VA V3 segments and VAG in BI cohort was substantially smaller than that in control cohort. Preoperative individual 3D computed tomography (CT), CT angiography and intraoperative navigation are recommended for BI patients receiving posterior screw placement.