RSS-Feed abonnieren
PDF herunterladen
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1756625
Morphometric Study for C1 Pedicle Screw Placement in Thai Patients
Funding None.
Abstract
Background Traumatic atlantoaxial (upper cervical spine) leads to instability in weightbearing movement and neurological deficit. Presently, C1 (axial) lateral mass or pedicle screws for fixation are the most popular because of excellent mechanical performance for internal fixation. C1 pedicle screw fixation can reduce intraoperative blood loss and postoperative occipital neuralgia more than C1 lateral mass screws. However, screws cannot be inserted completely through the pedicle in some patients due to C1 size.
Objective We aimed to determine the ideal pedicle screw entry point, angle of screw projection, and pedicle height in the Thai population.
Methods Patient data were collected and measured using the INFINITT program at Mukdahan Hospital from September 2020 to June 2021. The C1 measurements, i.e., distance from the midline to the medial edge of the posterior arch (DPA) and medial edge transverse foramen (DTF), angle of screw projection, and length and height of the pedicle were recorded. Descriptive statistics and t-test were used to analyze the data.
Results The mean Thai pedicle dimensions were DPA = 14.17 mm (range: 11.19–19.70 mm), DTF = 22.09 mm (range: 18.13–26.44 mm), ideal screw entry point = 18.13 mm (range: 15.19–22.00 mm), ideal angle of screw projection medial angulation = 2.67 degrees (range: 0–7 degrees), and height of posterior arch (pedicle) = 4.77 mm (range: 2.68–7.22 mm). Forty of 167 patients (24.0%) had a pedicle height less than 4.0 mm (bilateral 11 patients and unilateral 29 patients).
Conclusions The ideal C1 pedicle screw entry point is approximately 18.13 mm from the midline. In the Thai samples with C1 pedicle height less than 4.0 mm, the screws cannot be inserted completely through the pedicle. Therefore, screw insertion should be partially through the pedicle (notching technique).
Publikationsverlauf
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
08. Oktober 2022
© 2022. Asian Congress of Neurological Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
-
References
- 1 Gallie WE. Fractures and dislocations of cervical spine. Am J Surg 1939; 46: 495-499
- 2 Brooks AL, Jenkins EB. Atlanto-axial arthrodesis by the wedge compression method. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978; 60 (03) 279-284
- 3 Dickman CA, Sonntag VK, Papadopoulos SM, Hadley MN. The interspinous method of posterior atlantoaxial arthrodesis. J Neurosurg 1991; 74 (02) 190-198
- 4 Holness RO, Huestis WS, Howes WJ, Langille RA. Posterior stabilization with an interlaminar clamp in cervical injuries: technical note and review of the long term experience with the method. Neurosurgery 1984; 14 (03) 318-322
- 5 Magerl F, Seemann P. Stable posterior fusion of the atlas and axis by transarticular screw fixation. In: Kehr P, Weidner A. eds. Cervical spine I. New York: Springer; 1987: 322-327
- 6 Harms J, Melcher RP. Posterior C1-C2 fusion with polyaxial screw and rod fixation. Spine 2001; 26 (22) 2467-2471
- 7 Wright NM. Translaminar rigid screw fixation of the axis. Technical note. J Neurosurg Spine 2005; 3 (05) 409-414
- 8 Elliott RE, Tanweer O, Boah A. et al. Atlantoaxial fusion with transarticular screws: meta-analysis and review of the literature. World Neurosurg 2013; 80 (05) 627-641
- 9 Elliott RE, Tanweer O, Boah A. et al. Outcome comparison of atlantoaxial fusion with transarticular screws and screw-rod constructs: meta-analysis and review of literature. J Spinal Disord Tech 2014; 27 (01) 11-28
- 10 Lee MJ, Cassinelli E, Riew KD. The feasibility of inserting atlas lateral mass screws via the posterior arch. Spine 2006; 31 (24) 2798-2801
- 11 Filho NMF, Arantes R, do Nascimento AL, Herrero CFPDS. Morphometric Study of the Atlas. Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2020; 55 (01) 62-69
- 12 Tan M, Wang H, Wang Y. et al. Morphometric evaluation of screw fixation in atlas via posterior arch and lateral mass. Spine 2003; 28 (09) 888-895
- 13
Simsek S,
Yigitkanli K,
Seçkin H.
et al.
Ideal screw entry point and projection angles for posterior lateral mass fixation
of the atlas: an anatomical study. Eur Spine J 2009; 18 (09) 1321-1325
MissingFormLabel
- 14
Blagg SE,
Don AS,
Robertson PA.
Anatomic determination of optimal entry point and direction for C1 lateral mass screw
placement. J Spinal Disord Tech 2009; 22 (04) 233-239
MissingFormLabel
- 15 Christensen DM, Eastlack RK, Lynch JJ, Yaszemski MJ, Currier BL. C1 anatomy and dimensions relative to lateral mass screw placement. Spine 2007; 32 (08) 844-848
- 16 Srivastava A, Mahajan R, Nanda A. et al. Morphometric study of C1 pedicle and feasibility evaluation of C1 pedicle screw placement with a novel clinically relevant radiological classification in an Indian population. Asian Spine J 2017; 11 (05) 679-685
- 17 Qian LX, Hao DJ, He BR, Jiang YH. Morphology of the atlas pedicle revisited: a morphometric CT-based study on 120 patients. Eur Spine J 2013; 22 (05) 1142-1146