Comparison of Atlantoaxial Fusion with Transarticular Screws and C1 Lateral Mass-C2 Screws Using Intraoperative O-Arm Navigation

Surgical outcomes of intraoperative O-arm versus C-arm fluoroscopy in occipitocervical fixation: a retrospective analysis

PURPOSE

This study aims to compare the effect of using O-arm and C-arm fluoroscopy on the surgical outcomes of occipitocervical fixation.

METHODS

The study included patients who underwent occipitocervical fixation using O-arm or C-arm between 2005 and 2021. Of 56 patients, 34 underwent O-arm-assisted surgery (O-group) and 22 underwent C-arm-assisted surgery (C-group). We assessed surgical outcomes, including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, perioperative complications, and bone union.

RESULTS

Almost half of the patients had rheumatoid arthritis-related disorders in both groups. Sixteen cases (47.1%) in the O-group and 12 cases (54.5%) in the C-group were fixed from occipito (Oc) to C3, 12 cases (38.2%) in the O-group and 7 cases (31.8%) in the C-group from Oc to C4-7, 5 cases (14.7%) in the O-group, and 3 cases (13.6%) in the C-group from Oc to T2 (p = 0.929). There was no significant difference in operative time (p = 0.239) and intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.595) between the two groups. Dysphagia was the most common complication in both groups (O-group vs. C-group, 11.7% vs. 9.1%). Regarding implant-related complications, occipital plate dislodgement was observed in four cases (18.2%) in the C-group (p = 0.02). The bone union rate was 96.3% in the O-group and 93.3% in the C-group (P = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

O-arm use is associated with a reduced rate of occipital plate dislodgment and has a similar complication incidence compared with C-arm-assisted surgery and does not prolong operative time despite the time needed for setting and scanning. Accordingly, an O-arm is safe and useful for occipitocervical fixation surgery.

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.

The Comparison Between Transarticular Screw Fixation and Segmental Screw-Rod Fixation for Posterior Fusion of the C1-2 Segment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Both transarticular screw fixation (TAS) and segmental screw-rod fixation (SF) have been widely performed for C1-2 fusion; however, just only small clinical studies and a few meta-analyses comparing the 2 surgical techniques for C1-2 posterior fusion have been reported.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane, Embase, and Medline databases for articles comparing the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of TAS and SF for C1-2 posterior fusion with April 14, 2022, as the publication cutoff date. The odds ratio (OR) and standardized mean difference were used to analyze differences in outcomes between the 2 abovementioned surgical techniques. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 5101 publications were assessed, and 6 studies were finally included in the study. In terms of the fusion rate, SF produced significantly better outcomes than TAS did (OR = 2.96, P = 0.02). With respect to surgical outcomes, blood loss and operation times were significantly lower in the TAS group than those in the SF group (P = 0.008 and P < 0.00001, respectively). The rate of vertebral artery injury was significantly lower in the SF group than that in the TAS group (OR = 3.95, P = 0.04). However, other complications, such as screw malposition, infection, hardware failure, and nonunion, were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SF showed a greater fusion rate and lower risk of vertebral artery injury than TAS did, but TAS showed less blood loss and lower operation times than SF.