The Value and Limitation of Cervical Traction in the Evaluation of the Reducibility of Atlantoaxial Dislocation and Basilar Invagination Using the Intraoperative O-Arm

The Classification of Axial Deformity in Patients with Basilar Invagination

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the variation types of the axis in patients with basilar invagination (BI), then propose a classification scheme of the axis deformity.

METHODS

From December 2013 to September 2020, 92 patients (male 42, female 50) who were diagnosed with BI were studied retrospectively. Based on the imaging data of CT, the width and height of the axis pedicle and the sagittal diameter of the lateral mass were measured in each patient. According to the development of axis pedicle and lateral mass, the types of axis variation were summarized, and then the classification scheme of axis deformity was put forward.

RESULTS

All cases were analyzed and axis deformities were divided into four types. Type I: the axis is basically normal (53 cases, 57.6%). Type II: axis lateral mass is dysplasia (eight cases, 8.7%), which includes two subtypes: type IIA, the axis unilateral lateral mass is dysplasia (three cases); type IIB, the axis bilateral lateral masses are all dysplasia (five cases). Type III: axis pedicle is dysplasia (11 cases, 12%), which is subdivided into two subtypes: type IIIA, the axis unilateral pedicle is dysplasia (six cases); type IIIB, the axis bilateral pedicles are all dysplasia (five cases). Type IV: axis pedicle and lateral mass are all dysplasia (20 cases, 21.7%), this type contains the following four subtypes: type IVA, the unilateral axis pedicle and unilateral lateral mass (contralateral or ipsilateral) are all hypoplasia (four cases); type IVB, the unilateral axis pedicle and bilateral lateral masses are all hypoplasia (five cases); type IVC, the bilateral axis pedicles and unilateral lateral mass are all dysplasia (seven cases); type IVD, the bilateral axis pedicles and bilateral lateral masses are all dysplasia (four cases). The left and right abnormal lateral mass sagittal diameter (Type II) was (7.23 ± 1.39) mm and (5.96 ± 1.37) mm, respectively, the left and right abnormal pedicle width (Type III) was (2.61 ± 1.01) mm and (3.23 ± 0.66) mm, respectively, left and right abnormal pedicle height (Type III) was (5.43 ± 2.19) mm and (4.92 ± 1.76) mm, respectively. Moreover, the classification scheme has good repeatability and credibility.

CONCLUSIONS

The classification about axis deformity could provide personalized guidance for axis screw placement in the BI and other upper cervical surgery, and axis screw placement errors would be effectively avoided.

Posterior two-step distraction and reduction for basilar invagination with atlantoaxial dislocation: a novel technique for precise control of reduction degree without traction

PURPOSE

The pathological changes of basilar invagination (BI) and atlantoaxial dislocation (AAD) include vertical and horizontal dislocations. Current surgical techniques have difficulty in accurately controlling the degree of reduction in these two directions and often require preoperative traction, which increases patients' pain, hospital stay, and medical cost. This study aimed to introduce a novel technique for accurately reducing horizontal and vertical dislocation without preoperative traction and report the radiological and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

From 2010 to 2020, patients with BI and AAD underwent posterior two-step distraction and reduction (TSDR) and occipitocervical fixation. Radiological examination was used to evaluate the reduction degree (RD) and compression. Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score was used to evaluate clinical outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients with BI and AAD underwent TSDR and occipitocervical fusion. The clinical symptoms of 98.2% of them improved. JOA score increased significantly after the operation. Appropriate (50% ≤ RD < 80%) or satisfactory (RD ≥ 80%) horizontal reduction was achieved in 92.7% of patients, and 90.9% obtained appropriate or satisfactory vertical reduction. Thirty-one patients did not undergo preoperative skull traction. There was no significant difference in radiological outcomes or JOA scores between the traction and non-traction groups. However, the length of hospital stay in the traction group was longer than that in the non-traction group.

CONCLUSION

TSDR enables horizontal and vertical reduction. It is a safe, simple, and effective technique for patients with BI and AAD. Despite the absence of preoperative skull traction, the degree of reduction and clinical outcomes were satisfactory.

Usefulness of a Three-Dimensional-Printed Model in the Treatment of Irreducible Atlantoaxial Dislocation with Transoral Atlantoaxial Reduction Plate

Objective

To evaluate the usefulness of a 3D‐printed model for transoral atlantoaxial reduction plate (TARP) surgery in the treatment of irreducible atlantoaxial dislocation (IAAD).

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted of 23 patients (13 men, 10 women; mean age 58.17 ± 5.27 years) with IAAD who underwent TARP from January 2015 to July 2017. Patients were divided into a 3D group (12 patients) and a non‐3D group (11 patients). A preoperative simulation process was undertaken for the patients in the 3D group, with preselection of the TARP system using a 3D‐printed 1:1 scale model, while only imaging data was used for the non‐3D group. Complications, clinical outcomes (Japanese Orthopaedic Association [JOA] and visual analogue score [VAS]), and image measurements (atlas–dens interval [ADI], cervicomedullary angle [CMA], and clivus‐canal angle [CCA]) were noted preoperatively and at the last follow up.

Results

A total of 23 patients with a follow‐up time of 16.26 ± 4.27 months were included in the present study. The surgery duration, intraoperative blood loss, and fluoroscopy times in the 3D group were found to be shorter than those in non‐3D group, with statistical significance. The surgery duration was 3.29 ± 0.45 h in the 3D group and 4.68 ± 0.90 h in the non‐3D group, and the estimated intraoperative blood loss was 131.67 ± 43.03 mL in the 3D group and 185.45 ± 42.28 mL in the non‐3D group. No patients received blood transfusions. The intraoperative fluoroscopy times were 5.67 ± 0.89 in the 3D group and 7.91 ± 1.45 in the non‐3D group. Preoperatively and at last follow up, JOA and VAS scores and ADI, CCA, and CMA were improved significantly within the two groups. However, no statistical difference was observed between the two groups. However, surgical site infection occurred in 1 patient in the 3D group, who underwent an emergency revision operation of the removal of TARP device and posterior occipitocervical fixation; the patient recovered 2 weeks after the surgery. In 2 patients in the traditional group, a mistake occurred in the placement of screws, with no neurological symptoms related to the misplacement.

Conclusion

Preoperative surgical simulation using a 3D‐printed real‐size model is an intuitive and effective aid for TARP surgery for treating IAAD. The 3D‐printed biomodel precisely replicated patient‐specific anatomy for use in complicated craniovertebral junction surgery. The information was more useful than that available with 3D reconstructed images.