C2 Nerve Root Sectioning in Posterior C1-2 Instrumented Fusions

Efficacy and Safety of Goel-Harms Technique in Upper Cervical Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The main purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the incidence of implant-associated complications and fusion rates for the Goel-Harms technique (GHT) and to show potential factors affecting the complications and nonunion development.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed database according to PRISMA guidance was performed. The main inclusion criteria comprised description of fusion rate and/or implant-associated complications rate.

RESULTS

This systematic review included 86 articles focused on the results of surgery in 4208 patients. The rate of screw-related complications was as follows: 1) vertebral artery (VA) injury, 2.8%; 2) screw malposition in the direction of the VA, 5.8%; and 3) C2 nerve root irritation, 6.1%. The nonunion rate was 4.2%. Transpedicular screw insertion to the C1 and C2 vertebrae were the safest regarding VA injury and correlated with lower blood loss. For C1-C2 fusion, there was no statistical difference for the different bone graft localization. C2 nerve root irritation rate did not depend on screw insertion technique. The use of a freehand technique did not correlate with a high rate of screw-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The Goel-Harms technique is a promising method of C1-C2 fusion, with a relatively low nonunion and VA injury rate. It can be performed safely without C-arm or navigation system assistance. Transpedicular screw insertion trajectories to the C1 and C2 vertebrae were safest regarding VA injury and blood loss volume. Further comparative studies of various C1-C2 stabilization methods with a high level of significance should be carried out to identify the optimal approach.

Combined C1–2 transarticular screw fixation and C1 laminoplasty with interlaminar bone transplant for retro-odontoid pseudotumor: illustrative case

BACKGROUND

The surgical treatment for retro-odontoid pseudotumor (ROP) remains controversial. Posterior C1 laminectomy without fixation occasionally leads to postoperative enlargement of ROP. Because its pathogenesis is associated with atlantoaxial instability, atlantoaxial fixation with C1 laminectomy is commonly performed. Atlantoaxial fixation usually includes transarticular fixation and screw-rod fixation. However, these methods have some issues. That is, in transarticular fixation with C1 laminectomy, the bone grafting area is challenging to obtain. In screw-rod fixation with C1 laminectomy, extensive bleeding occurs at times if the lateral atlantoaxial joint is exposed to the transplant bone grafts.

OBSERVATIONS

Herein, the authors report a case of ROP treated with combined C1–2 transarticular screw fixation and C1 laminoplasty with interlaminar bone transplant, which can help achieve adequate spinal cord decompression and can simultaneously secure the bone grafting area between the laminae. In addition, the volume of intraoperative blood loss decreased. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging showed sufficient decompression of the spinal cord at the C1 level, and computed tomography performed after 6 months revealed bone union between the C1 and C2 laminae.

LESSONS

Combined C1–2 transarticular screw fixation and C1 laminoplasty with interlaminar bone transplant is a useful method for ROP.

C2 Nerve Root Preservation During Posterior Fixation for Instability Secondary to Congenital Craniovertebral Junction Anomalies: Feasibility Factors and Related Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Patients with instability because of congenital craniovertebral anomalies often have complex C1-C2 osseovascular anomalies. C2 nerve root sacrifice has been described to address such difficult anatomy during posterior C1-C2 fixation and has its own downsides. Its preservation as a recent alternative poses greater surgical challenge, and the considerations differ from other causes of craniovertebral junctional instability; the pertaining outcomes have been scarcely studied. The objective of this study was to prospectively determine the feasibility and outcomes related to C2 nerve root preservation in patients with congenital atlantoaxial dislocation (CAAD) after posterior C1-C2 fixation.

METHODS

In this observational study, 63 patients (126 nerve roots) with CAAD after posterior fixation were prospectively assessed. Underlying osseovascular anomalies affecting the feasibility of C2 nerve root preservation, and C2 nerve-related dysfunction at 12 months follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

The overall C2 nerve root preservation rate was 89.7%. Even in the presence of extreme joint obliquity/spondyloptosis and anomalous vertebral artery, it was feasible in about three fourths. After preservation, 28.3% patients developed new-onset C2 nerve root dysfunction: neuralgia in 2, dysesthesia in 6, and hypoesthesia/paresthesia in 9. The symptoms were not disabling in most patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In most patients with CAAD, C2 nerve root preservation is feasible despite an aberrant bony and vascular anatomy. A few patients after nerve root preservation develop related symptoms that are conservatively manageable, with no significant adverse consequences. Given the controversy in the literature on C2 nerve sacrifice-related outcomes, we favor an attempt at C2 nerve root preservation.

Posterior fusion for fragility type 2 odontoid fractures

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of elderly patients with type 2 odontoid fractures treated with an instrumented posterior fusion.

METHODS

Ninety-three consecutive patients older than 65 years of age in whom a type 2 odontoid fracture had been treated with a variety of C1-2 posterior screw fixation techniques were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

The average age was 78 years (range 65-95 years). Thirty-seven patients had an additional fracture, 30 of which involved C1. Three patients had cervical spinal cord dysfunction due to their injury. All patients had comorbidities. The average total hospitalization was 9.6 days (range 2-37 days). There were 3 deaths and 19 major complications, the most common of which was pneumonia. No patient suffered a vertebral artery injury. Imaging studies were obtained in 64 patients at least 12 months postsurgery (mean 19 months). Fusion was assessed by dynamic radiographs in all cases and with a CT scan in 80% of the cases. Four of the 64 patients did not achieve fusion (6.25% overall). All patients in whom fusion failed had undergone C1 lateral mass fixation and C2 pars (1/29, 3.4%) or laminar (3/9, 33.3%) fixation.

CONCLUSIONS

Instrumented posterior cervical fusions may be performed in elderly patients with acceptable morbidity and mortality. The fusion rate is excellent except when bilateral C2 translaminar screws are used for axis fixation.

A Prospective, Single-Blinded, Bicentric Study, and Literature Review to Assess the Need of C2-Ganglion Preservation - SAVIOUR's Criteria

Objective

Joint manipulation for craniovertebral junction instability is often hindered by the C2-ganglion (C2G). Our study aims to compare the surgical outcome among patients with or without C2G preservation and discuss the technical nuances.

Methods

We did a prospective, bicentric study and included all the operated patients with craniovertebral junction anomaly. The outcome was assessed by the Pain Numeric Rating Scale, Patient Satisfactions Score, and Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale. The fusion was assessed using Lenke fusion grade.

Results

One hundred seventy-one patients (88 in group A and 83 in group B) were included. The most common symptom was spastic quadriparesis (n = 165, 96.5%) with median Nurick grade 3.3. Thirteen patients had suboccipital numbness and 12 patients had paraesthesia. Mean blood loss in group A was 490 ± 96.2 mL and group B was 525 ± 45.7 mL; median operative time was 217.9 and 162.2 minutes in the groups A and B, respectively (p < 0.05). At the follow-up (median, 46.8 months), Lenke fusion grade A was achieved in 92.4% and grade B in 7.6%. A trend suggesting better functional outcomes (numbness, parestheisa, scar outcome, and postoperative ulcer formation) in group A was seen with all 6 patients, who underwent O-C2 fixation, developed pressure sore.

Conclusion

Our results support ganglion preservation, especially in the subset of patients where occipital plating is required. Although the study fails to show any statistical significance, we suggest that one should always start with an ‘intent’ of preservation as the functional outcome is better.

Clinical Outcomes of Atlantoaxial Dislocation Combined with Osteoporosis Using Posterior Atlantoaxial Rod, Screw Fixation, and Posterior Interfacet Fusion: A Retrospective Study of 21 Cases

Background

Surgical procedures on atlantoaxial dislocation combined with osteoporosis remain controversial. This study was established to assess the mid-term clinical outcomes of atlantoaxial dislocation combined with osteoporosis using posterior atlantoaxial rod, screw fixation and posterior interfacet fusion.

Material/Methods

From January 2017 to January 2020, 21 patients (4 males and 17 females) with coexisting atlantoaxial dislocation and osteoporosis who underwent posterior atlantoaxial rod and screw fixation were included in our study with an average age of 64±8.1 years (range, 57–74 years). The subjective and objective symptoms, together with the neurological function of the patients were measured. Radiography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were performed, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score for spinal cord function and VAS score for pain recovery was assessed.

Results

JOA and visual analog scale (VAS) score were significantly improved at 14±5.9 month follow-up compared with pretreatment values. Complete or almost complete anatomical reduction was observed in all 21 patients. All patients had good bony fusion at the final follow-up. No screw-loosening or atlantoaxial redislocation occurred in 21 cases. The only complication was mild numbness in the C2 innervation area of the posterior occipital region in 6 cases, which had no effect on life.

Conclusions

The results suggested that posterior atlantoaxial rod, screw fixation system, and posterior interfacet fusion could achieve satisfactory initial results for the treatment of atlantoaxial dislocation combined with osteoporosis.

Accuracy and safety of C2 pedicle or pars screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aim

The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and accuracy of the C2 pedicle versus C2 pars screws placement and free-hand technique versus navigation for upper cervical fusion patients.

Methods

Databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify all papers published up to April 2020 that have evaluated C2 pedicle/pars screws placement accuracy. Two authors individually screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The accuracy rates associated with C2 pedicle/pars were extracted. The pooled accuracy rate estimated was performed by the CMA software. A funnel plot based on accuracy rate estimate was used to evaluate publication bias.

Results

From 1123 potentially relevant studies, 142 full-text publications were screened. We analyzed data from 79 studies involving 4431 patients with 6026 C2 pedicle or pars screw placement. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to evaluate the quality of studies included in this review. Overall, funnel plot and Begg’s test did not indicate obvious publication bias. The pooled analysis reveals that the accuracy rates were 93.8% for C2 pedicle screw free-hand, 93.7% for pars screw free-hand, 92.2% for navigated C2 pedicle screw, and 86.2% for navigated C2 pars screw (all, P value < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed between the accuracy of placement C2 pedicle versus C2 pars screws with the free-hand technique and the free-hand C2 pedicle group versus the navigated C2 pedicle group (all, P value > 0.05).

Conclusion

Overall, there was no difference in the safety and accuracy between the free-hand and navigated techniques. Further well-conducted studies with detailed stratification are needed to complement our findings.

Posterior atlantoaxial fusion: a comprehensive review of surgical techniques and relevant vascular anomalies

Posterior atlantoaxial fusion is an important surgical technique frequently used to treat various pathologies involving the cervical 1-2 joint. Since the beginning of the 20th century, various fusion techniques have been developed with improved safety profile, higher fusion rates, and superior clinical outcome. Despite the advancement of technology and surgical techniques, posterior C1-2 fusion is still a technically challenging procedure given the complex bony and neurovascular anatomy in the craniovertebral junction (CVJ). In addition, vascular anomalies in this region are not uncommon and can lead to devastating neurovascular complications if unrecognized. Thus, it is important for spine surgeons to be familiar with various posterior atlantoaxial fusion techniques along with a thorough knowledge of various vascular anomalies in the CVJ. Intimate knowledge of the various surgical techniques in combination with an appreciation for anatomical variances, allows the surgeon develop a customized surgical plan tailored to each patient's particular pathology and individual anatomy. In this article, we aim to provide a comprehensive review of existing posterior C1-2 fusion techniques along with a review of common vascular anomalies in the CVJ.

Accuracy evaluation of placements of three different alternative C2 screws using the freehand technique in patients with high riding vertebral artery

An observational study.To evaluate the safeties of placing three different alternative C2 screws using the freehand technique under high riding vertebral artery (HRVA) and to analyze the C2 morphometry in patients with HRVA.A retrospective analysis of radiologic data was performed on patients that underwent C2 instrumentation from September 2004 to December 2017. Two hundred fifty-one patients were included, and 90 of these patients (35.9%) had a unilateral or bilateral HRVA. We placed three alternative C2 screws including superior pars, inferior pars, and translaminar screws. Computed tomography was used to assess cortical breeches of screw placement and obtain morphometric measurements of C2 pars and lamina, that is, superior pars height/length, inferior pars length, and laminar thickness/length. We used the modification of the all India Institute of Medical Sciences outcome to define cortical breach.In total, 117 alternative C2 screws were inserted in 90 patients; 7 superior pars screws (6%), 69 inferior pars screws (59.0%), and 41 translaminar (35%) screws. Although cortical breaches occurred during 31 screw placements (26.5%), these were unacceptable in only two cases (1.7%). No symptomatic neurovascular complication was observed after screw placement in any case. Mean height of C2 superior pars was 3.8 ± 1.8 mm and mean thickness of C2 lamina was 5.2 ± 1.1 mm. Mean lengths of superior pars, inferior pars, and lamina were 17.8 ± 3.0 mm, 13.6 ± 2.2 mm, and 26.7 ± 3.3 mm, respectively. Superior pars height and lamina thickness < 3.5 mm that was a minimal diameter of cervical screw were 49.6% and 6.8%, alternative C2 screw was not available in these cases.Placements of alternative C2 screws using the freehand technique were achieved accurately and safely in patients with HRVA. However, preoperative morphometric evaluation is essential to determine the best option for C2 instrumentation and C2 screw length to avoid neurovascular complications.

Occipital neuralgia: A neurosurgical perspective

Occipital neuralgia typically arises in the setting of nerve compression by fibrosis, surrounding anatomic structures, or osseous pathology, such as bone spurs or hypertrophic atlanto-epistropic ligament. It generally presents as paroxysmal bouts of sharp pain in the sensory distribution of the first three occipital nerves. Due to the long course of the greater occipital nerve (GON), and its peculiar anatomy, and location in a mobile region of the neck, it is unsurprising that the GON is at high risk for compression. Little is known how to diagnose or treat this neuropathic pain syndrome. The objective of this paper is to isolate the etiology involved, and treat this condition promptly. After all nonoperative efforts are exhausted, surgical transection of the nerve is the treatment of choice in these cases. An isolated C2 neurectomy or ganglionectomy is performed for an optimal pain relief. C1-2 instrumented fusion can be considered if, extensive facet arthropathy with instability is identified. Authors review the spectrum of treatment options for this debilitating condition, and discuss the case example of a patient who required conversion to a C1-C2 instrumented fusion following C2 ganglionectomy due to an underlying extensive degenerative disease and intraoperative findings suggestive of atlantoaxial instability.

How to Transect the C2 Root for C1 Lateral Mass Screw Placement: Case Series and Review of an Underappreciated Variable in Outcome

BACKGROUND

The techniques for atlantoaxial arthrodesis have been modified over the years, and placing C1 lateral mass screws is a modern approach. C2 neuropathy is a complication of concern; however, sacrifice of the C2 nerve is an accepted and often favored adjunct. The impact of the technique for cutting the C2 nerve is not adequately addressed in the literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes from a series of roots sacrificed during C1-2 fusion with attention to the C2 transection method.

METHODS

Clinical data were collected from trauma patients who underwent C1 screw fixation for atlantoaxial fusion. Chart review was performed and outcome assessed through telephone surveys to patients who were at least 6 months postoperative. Quality of life, C2 nerve function, neck pain, and head pain were assessed.

RESULTS

Sixty-six roots were divided in 35 patients. There were no cases of occipital neuralgia at routine 3-month follow-up. Delayed telephone surveys were completed in 17 patients and exposed 4 cases of severe head/neck pain but none consistent with occipital neuralgia.

CONCLUSIONS

C2 neuralgia is rare when sharply dividing the C2 root with the aid of bipolar electrocautery at the midportion of the ganglion where it overlies the C1-2 joint. A literature review suggests the impact of the root sacrifice method is an underappreciated modifiable factor in outcome. In future reports, description of the root transection technique is imperative and trials comparing ganglionectomy versus transection proximal to the ganglion or through the ganglion should be considered.

Finding the "Sweet Spot" for C2 Root Transection in C1 Lateral Mass Exposure

BACKGROUND

Atlantoaxial fusion often requires C2 nerve transection for complete C1 lateral mass exposure. Nerve transection is made ideally at the preganglionic segment proximal to the dorsal root ganglion to minimize the risk of postoperative dysesthesias. If the nerve is transected too proximally, cerebrospinal fluid leak may be encountered by violation of the dura and arachnoid where the sensory and motor nerve rootlets exit the subarachnoid space. In this study we aimed to quantify the length of the C2 nerve preganglionic segment using cadaveric specimens and develop a method for reliable intraoperative localization for sectioning during C1-2 arthrodesis.

METHODS

Using microsurgical techniques, 16 C2 nerves from 8 frozen and injected cadaveric cervical spine specimens were dissected. Two key measurements were taken to establish a reliable method of preganglionic segment identification. The "sweet spot" for nerve transection was based on the approximate location of the midpoint of the preganglionic segment.

RESULTS

The final determination of the ideal spot for C2 nerve transection using these calculations was 3 mm lateral to the medial border of the lateral mass.

CONCLUSIONS

This anatomic study found remarkable consistency in the preganglionic segment length. The medial border of the lateral mass appeared to be a consistently reliable landmark for identification of the preganglionic segment of the C2 nerve root. By using relationships between known anatomic structures intraoperatively, safety of atlantoaxial fixation can be optimized to maximize complication avoidance and satisfactory patient outcomes.

Use of Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 at the C1-C2 Lateral Articulation without Posterior Structural Bone Graft in Posterior Atlantoaxial Fusion in Adult Patients

BACKGROUND

Posterior atlantoaxial fusion is an important armamentarium for neurosurgeons to treat several pathologies involving the craniovertebral junction. Although the potential advantages of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) are well documented in the lumbar spine, its indication for C1-C2 fusion has not been well characterized. In our institution, we apply rhBMP-2 to the C1-C2 joint either alone or with hydroxyapatite, locally harvested autograft chips, and/or morselized allogenic bone graft for selected cases-without conventional posterior structural bone graft. We report the clinical outcomes of the surgical technique to elucidate its feasibility.

METHODS

We performed a single-center, retrospective review of data from 2008 to 2016 and identified 69 patients who had undergone posterior atlantoaxial fusion with rhBMP-2. The clinical records of these patients were reviewed, and the baseline characteristics, operative data, and postoperative complications were collected and statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

The average age of the 69 patients was 60.8 ± 4.5 years, and 55.1% were women. With an average follow-up period of 21.1 ± 4.2 months, the C1-C2 fusion rate was 94.3% (65 of 69), and the average time to fusion was 11.4 ± 2.6 months (range, 5-23). The overall reoperation rate was 10.1% (7 of 69), with instrumentation failure in 7 patients (10.1%), adjacent segment disease in 2 (2.9%), and postoperative dysphagia and dyspnea in 2 patients (2.9%). No ectopic bone formation or soft tissue edema developed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although retrospective and from a single center, our study has shown that rhBMP-2 usage at the C1-C2 joint without posterior structural bone grafting is a safe and reasonable surgical option.

Reoperation for Symptomatic Nonunions in Atlantoaxial (C1-C2) Fusions with and without Bone Morphogenetic Protein: A Cohort of 108 Patients with >2 Years Follow-Up

OBJECTIVE

To determine if there is a difference in reoperation rates for symptomatic nonunions in atlantoaxial (C1-C2) fusions with or without bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) using data from a national spine registry and to analyze the different types of bone grafts used in the non-BMP group.

METHODS

Data from the Kaiser Permanente spine registry were used to identify patients with C1-C2 fusions with >2 years follow-up. Patient characteristics, diagnosis, operative times, length of stay, and reoperations were extracted from the registry. The data set was divided into patients with and without BMP. Further analysis was made of the different types of non-BMP grafts as well as the instrumentation used.

RESULTS

In our cohort, we found 58 patients (53.7%) with BMP and 50 patients (46.3%) without with an average follow-up time of 5 years (interquartile range, 2.04-8.49). The BMP versus non-BMP groups differed in admitting diagnosis, operative times, length of stay, and follow-up times. There were no reoperations for symptomatic nonunions in both groups. The non-BMP group included iliac crest graft (with or without allograft [+/-] allograft); lamina (+/- allograft); and allograft alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Using one of the largest retrospective studies on C1-C2 fusions with and without BMP, we found no difference in reoperation rates for symptomatic nonunions. For the non-BMP group, we found that lamina (+/- allograft) or allograft alone may also be just as effective as iliac crest graft (+/- allograft) in having no reoperations for symptomatic nonunions.

A Modified Posterior C1/C2 Fusion Technique for the Management of Traumatic Odontoid Type II Fractures by Using Intraoperative Spinal Navigation: Midterm Results

OBJECTIVES

To assess midterm safety and efficacy of a modified Goel-Harms technique for the treatment of odontoid instabilities.

DESIGN

Longitudinal prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Urban Level 1 Trauma Center in Southwest Germany.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

Orthopaedic and neurosurgical trauma patients older than 18 years admitted for ≤24 hours.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The outcome was evaluated with respect to neurological outcome, radiological outcome and surgical complications. For the functional assessment, the EQ-5D questionnaire was used. Furthermore, the Neck Disability Index and visual analog scale for neck pain were determined. A median follow-up of 39 months (range: 6-97 months) was given.

RESULTS

Of the total sample (n = 56), 26 patients with an acute traumatic odontoid fracture type II underwent posterior atlantoaxial instrumentation using spinal navigation. Neck pain evaluated with visual analog scale and Neck Disability Index showed a significant decrease at final follow-up compared to preoperative values (P < 0.05). According to the EQ-5D, the valuation of quality of life after C1/C2 fusion showed an excellent outcome with complete recovery in most cases (0.7-1).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate satisfactory and maintained midterm clinical and radiological results after a median follow-up of 39 months. With the use of intraoperative spinal navigation, we demonstrate a modified C1/C2 posterior fusion technique, rendering accuracy, feasibility, and overall safety.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Quantitative Assessment of the Anatomical Footprint of the C1 Pedicle Relative to the Lateral Mass: A Guide for C1 Lateral Mass Fixation

STUDY DESIGN

Anatomic study.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relationship of the anatomical footprint of the C1 pedicle relative to the lateral mass (LM).

METHODS

Anatomic measurements were made on fresh frozen human cadaveric C1 specimens: pedicle width/height, LM width/height (minimum/maximum), LM depth, distance between LM's medial aspect and pedicle's medial border, distance between LM's lateral aspect to pedicle's lateral border, distance between pedicle's inferior aspect and LM's inferior border, distance between arch's midline and pedicle's medial border. The percentage of LM medial to the pedicle and the distance from the center of the LM to the pedicle's medial wall were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 42 LM were analyzed. The C1 pedicle's lateral aspect was nearly confluent with the LM's lateral border. Average pedicle width was 9.0 ± 1.1 mm, and average pedicle height was 5.0 ± 1.1 mm. Average LM width and depth were 17.0 ± 1.6 and 17.2 ± 1.6 mm, respectively. There was 6.9 ± 1.5 mm of bone medial to the medial C1 pedicle, which constituted 41% ± 9% of the LM's width. The distance from C1 arch's midline to the medial pedicle was 13.5 ± 2.0 mm. The LM's center was 1.6 ± 1 mm lateral to the medial pedicle wall. There was on average 3.5 ± 0.6 mm of the LM inferior to the pedicle inferior border.

CONCLUSIONS

The center of the lateral mass is 1.6 ± 1 mm lateral to the medial wall of the C1 pedicle and approximately 15 mm from the midline. There is 6.9 ± 1.5 mm of bone medial to the medial C1 pedicle. Thus, the medial aspect of C1 pedicle may be used as an anatomic reference for locating the center of the C1 LM for screw fixation.

Freehand technique for C2 pedicle and pars screw placement: is it safe?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

During placement of C2 pedicle and pars screws, intraoperative fluoroscopy is used so that neurovascular complications can be avoided, and screws can be placed in the proper position. However, this method is time consuming and increases radiation exposure. Furthermore, it does not guarantee a completely safe and accurate screw placement.

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of the C2 pedicle and pars screw placement without fluoroscopic or other guidance methods.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective comparative study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

One hundred ninety-eight patients who underwent placement of C2 pedicle or pars screws without any intraoperative radiographic guidance were included in the study.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Medical records and postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans were evaluated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical data were reviewed for intraoperative and postoperative complications. The accuracy of screw placement was evaluated with postop CT scans using a previously published cortical-breach grading system (described by the location and the percentage of the screw diameter over the cortical edge [0=none, Grade I≤25% of the screw diameter, Grade II=26%-50%, Grade III=51%-75%, and Grade IV=76%-100%]).

RESULTS

A total of 148 pedicle screws and 219 pars screws were inserted by two experienced surgeons. There were no cases of cerebral spinal fluid leakage and no neurovascular complications during screw placement. Postoperative CT scans were available for 76 patients, which included 52 pedicle screws and 87 pars screws. For cases with C2 pedicle screws, there were 12 breaches (23%); these included 10 screws with a Grade I breach (19%), 1 screw with a Grade II breach (2%), and 1 screw with a Grade IV breach (2%). Lateral breaches occurred in seven screws (13%), inferior breaches occurred in three screws (6%), and superior breaches occurred in two screws (4%). For cases with C2 pars screws, there were 10 breaches (11%); these included 6 screws with a Grade I breach (7%), 2 screws with a Grade II breach (2%), and 2 screws with a Grade IV breach (2%). Medial breaches were found in four (5%), lateral breaches in two (2%), inferior breaches in two (2%), and superior breaches in two (2%). Two of the cases with superior breaches (one for pedicle and one for pars) experienced occipital neuralgia months after surgery. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of overall and high-grade breaches between the groups (p=.07 and 1.0, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Although even in experienced hands up to 23% of C2 pedicle screws and 11% of C2 pars screws placed using a freehand technique without guidance may be malpositioned, a clear majority of malpositioned screws demonstrated a low-grade breach, and only 2 of 198 patients (1%) experienced complications related to screw placement.

Cold Allodynia after C2 Root Resection in Sprague-Dawley Rats

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate pain-related behaviors after bilateral C2 root resection and change in pain patterns in the suboccipital region in rats.

Methods

Male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly assigned to three groups (n=25/group); näive, sham, and C2 resection. Three, 7, 10, and 14 days after surgery, cold allodynia was assessed using 20 μL of 99.7% acetone. c-Fos and c-Jun were immunohistochemically stained to evaluate activation of dorsal horn gray matter in C2 segments of the spinal cord 2 hours, 1 day, 7 days, and 14 days after surgery.

Results

Three days after surgery, the response to acetone in the sham group was significantly greater than in the näive group, and this significant difference between the näive and sham groups was maintained throughout the experimental period (p<0.05 at 3, 7, 10, and 14 days). Seven, 10, and 14 days after surgery, the C2 root resection group exhibited a significantly greater response to acetone than the näive group (p<0.05), and both the sham and C2 resection groups exhibited significantly greater responses to acetone compared with 3 days after surgery. No significant difference in cold allodynia was observed between the sham and C2 root resection groups throughout the experimental period. Two hours after surgery, both the sham and C2 root resection groups exhibited significant increases in c-Fos- and c-Jun-positive neurons compared with the naive group (p=0.0021 and p=0.0358 for the sham group, and p=0.0135 and p=0.014 for the C2 root resection group, respectively). One day after surgery, both the sham and C2 root resection groups exhibited significant decreases in c-Fos -positive neurons compared with two hours after surgery (p=0.0169 and p=0.0123, respectively), and these significant decreases in c-Fos immunoreactivity were maintained in both the sham and C2 root resection groups 7 and 14 days after surgery. The sham and C2 root resection groups presented a tendency toward a decrease in c-Jun-positive neurons 1, 7, and 14 days after surgery, but the decrease did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusion

We found no significant difference in cold allodynia and the early expression of c-Fos and c-Jun between the sham and C2 resection groups. Our results may support the routine resection of the C2 nerve root for posterior C1–2 fusion, but, further studies are needed.

Does Transection of the C2 Nerve Roots During C1 Lateral Mass Screw Placement for Atlantoaxial Fixation Result in a Superior Outcome?: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of transection of the C2 roots during C1 lateral mass screw placement for atlantoaxial fixation.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Transection of the C2 nerve roots has been recommended during atlantoaxial fixation to facilitate C1 lateral mass screw placement and possibly reduce postoperative occipital neuralgia, although this practice remains controversial.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies evaluating the outcomes of C1-2 fixation involving sacrifice of the C2 roots. We calculated transformed proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the outcomes of occipital neuralgia, numbness, bony fusion, and procedural morbidity. For studies comparing C2 transection with nerve sparing surgery, we performed meta-analyses for the outcomes of occipital neuralgia, occipital numbness, blood loss, and operative time.

RESULTS

Eight observational studies (N = 393) met eligibility criteria. The rate of postoperative occipital neuralgia among included studies was 0% to 25%; occipital numbness, 6.7% to100%; bony fusion, 96.7% to 100%; and procedural morbidity, 0% to 14.3%. Among comparative studies, C2 transection was associated with a higher rate of occipital numbness [odds ratio (OR) 178.6 (95% CI 26.6 to 1198.4)], lower blood loss [mean difference (MD) -195.3 mL (95% CI -317.7 to -72.8 mL)] and shorter operative times [MD -57.5 mins (95% CI -76.9 to -38.2 mins)] than when the C2 roots were spared. We found no difference in rates of occipital neuralgia [OR 1.44 (95% CI 0.45 to 4.68)].

CONCLUSION

Transection of the C2 nerve roots appears to be a viable, safe option when undertaking placement of C1 lateral mass screws. The procedure is associated with reduced operative duration and blood loss, increased rate of occipital numbness, and no change in the rate of occipital neuralgia. However, given the relatively low quality of evidence, prospective, controlled studies to evaluate this strategy are recommended.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N /A.

C2 and Greater Occipital Nerve: The Anatomic and Functional Implications in Spinal Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Posterior C1-C2 fusion is a highly successful treatment for atlantoaxial instability and other pathologies of the cervical spine, with fusion rates approaching 95%-100%. However, poor visualization of the lateral masses of C1 secondary to the course of the C2 nerve root along with blood loss from the venous plexus and compression of the C2 nerve from lateral mass screws are technical obstacles that can arise during surgery. Thus, sacrifice of the C2 nerve root has long since been debated in fusions involving the C1 and C2 vertebral bodies.

METHODS

Cadaveric dissections on four adult specimens were performed. Both intradural and extradural courses of C2 were studied in detail. The tentative site of C2 nerve root compression during placement of C1 lateral mass screws was studied in detail. Both the indication as well as the ease of C2 neurectomy were studied in relation to postoperative compression and entrapment.

RESULTS

Four-six dorsal rootlets of C2 nerve were observed while studying the intradural course. The extradural course was studied with respect to the lateral mass of C1. The greater occipital nerve (GON) course was fairly consistent in all specimens. Transection of C2 around its ganglion would allow for proper C1 lateral mass screw placement as the course of C2 nerve interferes with proper placement of instrumentation.

CONCLUSION

C2 nerve root transection is associated with occipital numbness but this often has no effect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The C2 nerve root preservation is often associated with entrapment neuropathy or occipital neuralgia, which greatly affects HRQOL. The C2 nerve root transection helps in better visualization, aids in optimal placement of C1 lateral mass screws, minimizes estimated blood loss and improves surgical outcome with successful fusion.

Posterior arch C-1 screw technique: a cadaveric comparison study

OBJECTIVE

Posterior atlantoaxial stabilization and fusion using C-1 lateral mass screw fixation has become commonly used in the treatment of instability and for reconstructive indications since its introduction by Goel and Laheri in 1994 and modification by Harms in 2001. Placement of such lateral mass screws can be challenging because of the proximity to the spinal cord, vertebral artery, an extensive venous plexus, and the C-2 nerve root, which overlies the designated starting point on the posterior center of the lateral mass. An alternative posterior access point starting on the posterior arch of C-1 could provide a C-2 nerve root–sparing starting point for screw placement, with the potential benefit of greater directional control and simpler trajectory. The authors present a cadaveric study comparing an alternative strategy (i.e., a C-1 screw with a posterior arch starting point) to the conventional strategy (i.e., using the lower lateral mass entry site), specifically assessing the safety of screw placement to preserve the C-2 nerve root.

METHODS

Five US-trained spine fellows instrumented 17 fresh human cadaveric heads using the Goel/Harms C-1 lateral mass (GHLM) technique on the left and the posterior arch lateral mass (PALM) technique on the right, under fluoroscopic guidance. After screw placement, a CT scan was obtained on each specimen to assess for radiographic screw placement accuracy. Four faculty spine surgeons, blinded to the surgeon who instrumented the cadaver, independently graded the quality of screw placement using a modified Upendra classification.

RESULTS

Of the 17 specimens, the C-2 nerve root was anatomically impinged in 13 (76.5%) of the specimens. The GHLM technique was graded Type 1 or 2, which is considered “acceptable,” in 12 specimens (70.6%), and graded Type 3 or 4 (“unacceptable”) in 5 specimens (29.4%). In contrast, the PALM technique had 17 (100%) of 17 graded Type 1 or 2 (p = 0.015). There were no vertebral artery injuries found in either technique. All screw violations occurred in the medial direction.

CONCLUSIONS

The PALM technique showed statistically fewer medial penetrations than the GHLM technique in this study. The reason for this is not clear, but may stem from a more angulated ”up-and-in” screw direction necessary with a lower starting point.

Detethering of the C2 Nerve Root and Avoidance of Transection and Injury During C1 Screw Placement: A Cadaveric Feasibility Study

INTRODUCTION

Regional neurovascular structures must be avoided during invasive spine hardware placement. During C1 lateral mass screw placement, the C2 nerve root is put in harm's way. Therefore the current anatomic study was performed to identify techniques that might avoid such neural injury.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

On 10 cadaveric sides, dissection was carried down to the craniocervical junction. The C2 nerve root was identified, and its distal branches were traced out into the surrounding posterior cervical musculature. Once dissected, the nerve was displaced inferiorly away from the lateral mass of C1.

RESULTS

On all sides, the C2 nerve root could be easily detethered from surrounding tissues. On all sides, this allowed lateral mass screw placement without compression of the nerve.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of our cadaveric study, the C2 nerve root can be detethered enough at the level of the posterior lateral mass of C1 to avoid its injury during screw placement into this area.

Allograft versus autograft for pediatric posterior cervical and occipito-cervical fusion: a systematic review of factors affecting fusion rates

OBJECT Fusion rates are high for children undergoing posterior cervical fusion (PCF) and occipito-cervical fusion (OCF). Autologous bone has been widely used as the graft material of choice, despite the risk of donor-site morbidity associated with harvesting the bone, possibly because very low fusion rates were reported with posterior allograft cervical fusions in children several decades ago. Higher overall fusion rates using allograft in adults, associated with improvements in internal fixation techniques and the availability of osteoinductive substances such as bone morphogenetic protein (BMP), have led to heightened enthusiasm for the use of bank bone during pediatric PCF. A systematic review was performed to study factors associated with successful bone fusion, including the type of bone graft used. METHODS The authors performed a comprehensive PubMed search of English-language articles pertaining to PCF and OCF in patients less than 18 years old. Of the 561 abstracts selected, 148 articles were reviewed, resulting in 60 articles that had sufficient detail to be included in the analysis. A meta-regression analysis was performed to determine if and how age, fusion technique, levels fused, fusion substrate, BMP use, postoperative bracing, and radiographic fusion criteria were related to the pooled prevalence estimates. A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. RESULTS A total of 604 patients met the specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The overall fusion rate was 93%, with a mean age of 9.3 years and mean follow-up of 38.7 months. A total of 539 patients had fusion with autograft (94% fusion rate) and 65 patients with allograft (80% fusion rate). Multivariate meta-regression analysis showed that higher fusion rates were associated with OCF compared with fusions that excluded the occiput (p < 0.001), with the use of autograft instead of allograft (p < 0.001), and with the use of CT to define fusion instead of plain radiography alone. The type of internal fixation, the use of BMP, patient age, and the duration of follow-up were not found to be associated with fusion rates in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS Fusion rates for PCF are high, with higher rates of fusion seen when autograft is used as the bone substrate and when the occiput is included in the fusion construct. Further study of the use of allograft as a viable alternative to autograft bone fusion is warranted because limited data are available regarding the use of allograft in combination with more rigid internal fixation techniques and osteoinductive substances, both of which may enhance fusion rates with allograft.

C2 nerve dysfunction associated with C1 lateral mass screw fixation

The C1 lateral mass screw technique is widely used for atlantoaxial fixation. However, C2 nerve dysfunction may occur as a complication of this procedure, compromising the quality of life of affected patients. This is a review of the topic of C2 nerve dysfunction associated with C1 lateral mass screw fixation and related research developments. The C2 nerve root is located in the space bordered superiorly by the posterior arch of C1 , inferiorly by the C2 lamina, anteriorly by the lateral atlantoaxial joint capsule, and posteriorly by the anterior edge of the ligamentum flavum. Some surgeons suggest cutting the C2 nerve root during C1 lateral mass screw placement, whereas others prefer to preserve it. The incidence, clinical manifestations, causes, management, and prevention of C2 nerve dysfunction associated with C(1) lateral mass screw fixation are reviewed. Sacrifice of the C2 nerve root carries a high risk of postoperative numbness, whereas postoperative nerve dysfunction can occur when it has been preserved. Many surgeons have been working hard on minimizing the risk of postoperative C2 nerve dysfunction associated with C1 lateral mass screw fixation.

C2 nerve root transection during C1 lateral mass screw fixation: does it affect functionality and quality of life?

BACKGROUND

Sectioning of the C2 nerve root allows for direct visualization of the C1-2 joint and may facilitate arthrodesis.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical and functional consequences of C2 nerve root sectioning during placement of C1 lateral mass screws.

METHODS

All patients undergoing C1 lateral mass screw fixation were included in this prospective study. A standard questionnaire was used to determine the severity of occipital numbness/pain and its effect on quality of life (QOL). Domains of the neck disability index were used to assess the disability related to C2 symptoms.

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients were included (C2 transection, 8; C2 preservation, 20). A trend of decreased blood loss and length of surgery was observed in the C2 transection cohort. Occipital numbness was reported by 4 (50.0%) patients after C2 transection. Occipital neuralgia was reported by 7 (35.0%) patients with C2 preservation. None of the patients with numbness after C2 transection reported being "bothered" by it. All patients with occipital neuralgia after C2 sparing reported being "bothered" by it, and 57.1% reported a moderate to severe effect on QOL. The use of medication was reported by 5 (71.4%) patients with neuralgia vs none with numbness. Mean disability was significantly higher with neuralgia vs numbness (P = .016).

CONCLUSION

C2 nerve root transection is associated with increased occipital numbness but this has no effect on patient-reported outcomes and QOL. C2 nerve root preservation can be associated with occipital neuralgia, which has a negative impact on patient disability and QOL. C2 nerve root transection has no negative consequences during C1-2 stabilization.

Postoperative occipital neuralgia with and without C2 nerve root transection during atlantoaxial screw fixation: a post-hoc comparative outcome study of prospectively collected data

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Although routine transection of the C2 nerve root during atlantoaxial segmental screw fixation has been recommended by some surgeons, it remains controversial and to our knowledge no comparative studies have been performed to determine whether transection or preservation of the C2 nerve root affects patient-derived sensory outcomes.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to specifically analyze patient-derived sensory outcomes over time in patients with intentional C2 nerve root transection during atlantoaxial segmental screw fixation compared with those without transection.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a post-hoc comparative analysis of prospectively collected patient-derived outcome data.

PATIENT SAMPLE

The sample consists of 24 consecutive patients who underwent intentional bilateral transection of the C2 nerve root during posterior atlantoaxial segmental screw fixation (transection group) and subsequent 41 consecutive patients without transection (preservation group).

OUTCOME MEASURES

A visual analog scale (VAS) score was used for occipital neuralgia as the primary outcome measure and VAS score for neck pain, neck disability index score and Japanese Orthopedic Association score for cervical myelopathy and recovery rate, with bone union rate as the secondary outcome measure.

METHODS

Patient-derived outcomes including change in VAS score for occipital neuralgia over time were statistically compared between the two groups. This study was not supported by any financial sources and there is no topic-specific conflict of interest related to the authors of this study.

RESULTS

Seven (29%) of the 24 patients in the transection group experienced increased neuralgic pain at 1 month after surgery either because of newly developed occipital neuralgia or aggravation of preexisting occipital neuralgia. Four of the seven patients required almost daily medication even at the final follow-up (44 and 80 months). On the other hand, only four (10%) of 41 patients in the preservation group had increased neuralgic pain at 1 month after surgery, and at ≥ 1 year, no patients had increased neuralgic pain. The difference in the prevalence of increased neuralgic pain between the two groups was statistically significant at all time points (3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively) except at 1 month postoperatively. The intensity of neuralgic pain, which preoperatively had not been significantly different between the two groups, was significantly higher in the transection group at the final follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

C2 nerve root transection is not a benign procedure and, in our experience, more than a quarter of the patients experience increased neuralgic pain following C2 nerve root transection. Because the prevalence and intensity of postoperative neuralgia was significantly higher with C2 nerve root transection than with its preservation, we recommend against routine C2 nerve root transection when performing atlantoaxial segmental screw fixation.

Comparison of safety and stability of C-2 pars and pedicle screws for atlantoaxial fusion: meta-analysis and review of the literature

OBJECT

Some centers report a lower incidence of vertebral artery (VA) injury with C-2 pars screws compared with pedicle screws without sacrificing construct stability, despite biomechanical studies suggesting greater load failures with C-2 pedicle screws. The authors reviewed published series describing C-2 pars and pedicle screw implantation and atlantoaxial fusions and compared the incidence of VA injury, screw malposition, and successful atlantoaxial fusion with each screw type.

METHODS

Online databases were searched for English-language articles between 1994 and April of 2011 describing the clinical and radiographic outcomes following posterior atlantoaxial fusion with C-1 lateral mass and either C-2 pars interarticularis or pedicle screws. Thirty-three studies describing 2975 C-2 pedicle screws and 11 studies describing 405 C-2 pars screws met inclusion criteria for the safety analysis. Seven studies describing 113 patients treated with C-2 pars screws and 20 studies describing 918 patients treated with C-2 pedicle screws met inclusion criteria for fusion analysis. Standard and formal meta-analysis techniques were used to compare outcomes.

RESULTS

All studies provided Class III evidence. Ten instances of VA injury occurred with C-2 pedicle screws (0.3%) and no VA injury occurred with pars screws. The point estimate of VA injury for C-2 pedicle screws was 1.09% (95% CI 0.73%-1.63%) and was similar to that of C-2 pars screws (1.48%, 95% CI 0.62%-3.52%). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of clinically significant screw malpositions (1.14% [95% CI 0.77%-1.69%) vs 1.69% [95% CI 0.73%-3.84%]). Radiographically identified screw malposition occurred in a higher proportion of C-2 pedicle screws compared with C-2 pars screws (6.0% [95% CI 3.7%-9.6%] vs 4.0% [95% CI 2.0%-7.6%], p < 0.0001). Pseudarthrosis occurred in a greater proportion of patients treated with C-2 pars screws (5 [4.4%] of 113) compared with those treated with C-2 pedicle screws (2 [0.22%] of 900). Point estimates with 95% confidence intervals show a slightly higher rate of successful atlantoaxial fusion in the pedicle screw cohort (97.8% [CI 96.0%-98.8%] vs 93.5% [CI 86.6%-97.0%]; p < 0.0001). Q-testing ruled out heterogeneity between the study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

With a thorough knowledge of axis anatomy, surgeons can place both C-2 pars and C-2 pedicle screws accurately with a small risk of VA injury or clinically significant malposition. There may be subtle trade-off of safety for rigidity when using axial pedicle instead of pars screws, and the decision to use either screw type must be made only after careful review of the preoperative CT imaging and must take into account the surgeon's expertise and the particular demands of the clinical scenario in any given case.