C1–2 transarticular screws combined with C1 laminar hooks fixation: a modified posterior atlantoaxial fixation technique and outcome in 72 patients

Ni, Bin; Guo, Xiang; Xie, Ning; Li, Songkai; Zhou, Fengjing; Zhang, Feng; Liu, Qi

doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2397-6

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mendelsohn et al describe bilateral C2 pedicle fixation augmented with bilateral C2 translaminar screws to obtain circumferential anchorage around the ring of C2. 55 An auxiliary anchor around the C1/2 complex has been described with a screw in the spinous process of C2 by Liu et al, 39 short screws in the posterior arch of C1 42 , 43 or hooks over the ring of C1 41 and supplemental wiring. 37 There are however no available biomechanical studies to validate these fixation points.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Load sharing has been described via the use of anterior and supplementary posterior fixation to distribute the stress at the bone-implant interface 20,21,24 though this carries its own Posterior C2 pedicle 13 Posterior subaxial 13,[17][18][19][20][21] 3 Transarticular fixation with augmented wiring/hooks 35,38,41 Screw augmentation with PMMA 1 Anterior vertebral body screws [25][26][27][28]53 2 Odontoid screws [29][30][31][32]…”

Section: Load Sharingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 Transarticular screws at C1/2 35,38,41 2 Posterior arch screw in C1 43,44 3 Translaminar fixation in subaxial or C2 40 4 C2 spinous process screw 40 or wiring 38 5 Bilateral C2 pedicle with C2 translaminar fixation 55 Post-operative strategies Collar or halo 24,38 concerns for morbidity in elderly patients. 20 Cornefjord et al 20 describe load sharing techniques in the setting of fractures related to ankylosing spondylitis.…”

Section: Load Sharingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Review of Strategies to Improve Biomechanical Fixation in the Cervical Spine

Oitment

Thornley

Koziarz

et al. 2022

Global Spine Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design Systematic review. Objectives Review the surgical techniques and construct options aimed at improving the biomechanical strength of cervical constructs. Methods A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify all studies examining biomechanical strategies utilized in the osteoporotic cervical spine. Screening was performed in duplicate for all stages of the review process. Results An initial search returned 3887 articles. After deletion of duplications and review of abstracts and full text, 39 articles met inclusion criteria. Overall, the surgical techniques reviewed aimed at obtaining rigid fixation in the setting of poor bone quality, or dispersing the forces at the bone-implant interface. We identified 6 key techniques to improve biomechanical fixation. These include bicortical fixation, appropriate screw selection (size and trajectory), PMMA augmentation, load sharing techniques, consideration of ancillary fixation around the occipitocervical junction, and supplementing the construct with post-operative collar or halo. Conclusion The summation of the literature highlights a framework of modalities available to surgeons to improve biomechanical fixation in the cervical spine. While these may improve construct strength in the setting of osteoporosis, there is a paucity of evidence available to make recommendations in this patient population.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Load Sharingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Load Sharingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Review of Strategies to Improve Biomechanical Fixation in the Cervical Spine

Oitment

Thornley

Koziarz

et al. 2022

Global Spine Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3). 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

Outcome Instruments in Spinal Trauma Surgery: A Bibliometric Analysis

Cutler

Guzman

Connolly

et al. 2016

Global Spine Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design Literature review. Objective To identify outcomes instruments used in spinal trauma surgery over the past decade, their frequency of use, and usage trends. Methods Five top orthopedic journals were reviewed from 2004 to 2013 for clinical studies of surgical intervention in spinal trauma that reported patient-reported outcome instruments use or neurologic function scale use. Publication year, level of evidence (LOE), and outcome instruments were collected for each article and analyzed. Results A total of 58 studies were identified. Among them, 26 named outcome instruments and 7 improvised questionnaires were utilized. The visual analog scale (VAS) for pain was used most frequently (43.1%), followed by the Short Form 36 (34.5%), Frankel grade scale (25.9%), Oswestry Disability Index (20.7%) and American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (15.5%). LOE 4 was most common (37.9%), and eight LOE 1 studies were identified (10.3%). Conclusions The VAS pain scale is the most common outcome instrument used in spinal trauma. The scope of this outcome instrument is limited, and it may not be sufficient for discriminating between more and less effective treatments. A wide variety of functional measures are used, reflecting the need for a disease-specific instrument that accurately measures functional limitation in spinal trauma.

show abstract

“…C1-C2 Trans articular screws have been proven to be less biomechanically durable than a screw rod design when used alone. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] If there is substantial stenosis at C1 level necessitating C1 posterior arch excision, it might not always be possible to reinforce it with C1-C2 (focal cord edema)subliminal wiring and bone biotical bone graft. [9]Surgeon may utilize plates to fuse the bones together during this treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cranio Vertebral Function Anomaly With Spondylosyndesis: A Case Report

2022

pnr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crania vertebral junction abnormalities such as at lantoaxial dislocation with or without basilar invagination with or without association chiari malformation may cause a high cervical myelopathy occasionally mechanical factor such as inadequate canal decompression torticollis and scoliosis may lead to lack of implement. A 30 years old male patient was admitted in the neuro ward with presenting complaint of weakness in right leg since 9 month, pain in neck region since 9 month, difficulty during walking and unable to climb stairs, tingling sensation in right hand since 9 month. After undergoing certain primary therapeutic investigation likeBlood investigation, MRI, x-ray, patientwas diagnosed with a Cranio Vertebral Function Anomaly.He was initially treated with antibiotics, penicillin, Analgesic, antacid, antiemetic, and intravenous fluid along with alternative therapies i.e. gropping exercises of upper limb, bed mobility training, bed side sitting, breathing exercise and dynamic quads.Patient showed progressive during hospitalization.

show abstract

C1–2 transarticular screws combined with C1 laminar hooks fixation: a modified posterior atlantoaxial fixation technique and outcome in 72 patients

Cited by 9 publications

References 25 publications

A Review of Strategies to Improve Biomechanical Fixation in the Cervical Spine

A Review of Strategies to Improve Biomechanical Fixation in the Cervical Spine

Outcome Instruments in Spinal Trauma Surgery: A Bibliometric Analysis

Cranio Vertebral Function Anomaly With Spondylosyndesis: A Case Report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About