Atlantoaxial fixation using C1 posterior arch screws: feasibility study, morphometric data, and biomechanical analysis

Gilbert Cadena, Huy T. Duong, Jonathan J. Liu, Kee D Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

OBJECTIVEC1-2 is a highly mobile complex that presents unique surgical challenges to achieving biomechanical rigidity and fusion. Posterior wiring methods have been largely replaced with segmental constructs using the C1 lateral mass, C1 pedicle, C2 pars, and C2 pedicle. Modifications to reduce surgical morbidity led to the development of C2 laminar screws. The C1 posterior arch has been utilized mostly as a salvage technique, but recent data indicate that this method provides significant rigidity in flexion-extension and axial rotation. The authors performed biomechanical testing of a C1 posterior arch screw (PAS)/C2 pars screw construct, collected morphometric data from a population of 150 CT scans, and performed a feasibility study of a freehand C1 PAS technique in 45 cadaveric specimens.METHODSCervical spine CT scans from 150 patients were analyzed to determine the average C1 posterior tubercle thickness and size of C1 posterior arches. Eight cadavers were used to compare biomechanical stability of intact specimens, C1 lateral mass/C2 pars screw, and C1 PAS/C2 pars screw constructs. Paired comparisons were made using repeated-measures ANOVA and Holm-Sidak tests. Forty-five cadaveric specimens were used to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of the C1 PAS freehand technique.RESULTSMorphometric data showed the average craniocaudal thickness of the C1 posterior tubercle was 12.3 ± 1.94 mm. Eight percent (12/150) of cases showed thin posterior tubercles or midline defects. Average posterior arch thickness was 6.1 ± 1.1 mm and right and left average posterior arch length was 28.7 mm ± 2.53 mm and 28.9 ± 2.29 mm, respectively. Biomechanical testing demonstrated C1 lateral mass/C2 pars and C1 PAS/C2 pars constructs significantly reduced motion in flexion-extension and axial rotation compared with intact specimens (p < 0.05). The C1 lateral mass/C2 pars screw construct provided significant rigidity in lateral bending (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the two constructs in flexion-extension, lateral bending, or axial rotation. Of the C1 posterior arches, 91.3% were successfully cannulated using a freehand technique with a low incidence of cortical breach (4.4%).CONCLUSIONSThis biomechanical analysis indicates equivalent stability of the C1 PAS/C2 pars screw construct compared with a traditional C1 lateral mass/C2 pars screw construct. Both provide significant rigidity in flexion-extension and axial rotation. Feasibility testing in 45 cadaveric specimens indicates a high degree of accuracy with low incidence of cortical breach. These findings are supported by a separate radiographic morphometric analysis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)314-322
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of neurosurgery. Spine
Volume30
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 14 2018

Fingerprint

Feasibility Studies
Matched-Pair Analysis
Incidence
Cadaver
Analysis of Variance
Spine
Morbidity
Safety
Population

Keywords

  • atlantoaxial fixation
  • atlantoaxial instability
  • biomechanical analysis
  • C1 posterior arch screw
  • C1 screw
  • C1–2 instrumentation
  • cervical
  • PAS = posterior arch screw
  • ROM = range of motion

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Neurology
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Atlantoaxial fixation using C1 posterior arch screws : feasibility study, morphometric data, and biomechanical analysis. / Cadena, Gilbert; Duong, Huy T.; Liu, Jonathan J.; Kim, Kee D.

In: Journal of neurosurgery. Spine, Vol. 30, No. 3, 14.12.2018, p. 314-322.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{be777e31171f49e3afc1caa3d56c0cd8,
title = "Atlantoaxial fixation using C1 posterior arch screws: feasibility study, morphometric data, and biomechanical analysis",
abstract = "OBJECTIVEC1-2 is a highly mobile complex that presents unique surgical challenges to achieving biomechanical rigidity and fusion. Posterior wiring methods have been largely replaced with segmental constructs using the C1 lateral mass, C1 pedicle, C2 pars, and C2 pedicle. Modifications to reduce surgical morbidity led to the development of C2 laminar screws. The C1 posterior arch has been utilized mostly as a salvage technique, but recent data indicate that this method provides significant rigidity in flexion-extension and axial rotation. The authors performed biomechanical testing of a C1 posterior arch screw (PAS)/C2 pars screw construct, collected morphometric data from a population of 150 CT scans, and performed a feasibility study of a freehand C1 PAS technique in 45 cadaveric specimens.METHODSCervical spine CT scans from 150 patients were analyzed to determine the average C1 posterior tubercle thickness and size of C1 posterior arches. Eight cadavers were used to compare biomechanical stability of intact specimens, C1 lateral mass/C2 pars screw, and C1 PAS/C2 pars screw constructs. Paired comparisons were made using repeated-measures ANOVA and Holm-Sidak tests. Forty-five cadaveric specimens were used to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of the C1 PAS freehand technique.RESULTSMorphometric data showed the average craniocaudal thickness of the C1 posterior tubercle was 12.3 ± 1.94 mm. Eight percent (12/150) of cases showed thin posterior tubercles or midline defects. Average posterior arch thickness was 6.1 ± 1.1 mm and right and left average posterior arch length was 28.7 mm ± 2.53 mm and 28.9 ± 2.29 mm, respectively. Biomechanical testing demonstrated C1 lateral mass/C2 pars and C1 PAS/C2 pars constructs significantly reduced motion in flexion-extension and axial rotation compared with intact specimens (p < 0.05). The C1 lateral mass/C2 pars screw construct provided significant rigidity in lateral bending (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the two constructs in flexion-extension, lateral bending, or axial rotation. Of the C1 posterior arches, 91.3{\%} were successfully cannulated using a freehand technique with a low incidence of cortical breach (4.4{\%}).CONCLUSIONSThis biomechanical analysis indicates equivalent stability of the C1 PAS/C2 pars screw construct compared with a traditional C1 lateral mass/C2 pars screw construct. Both provide significant rigidity in flexion-extension and axial rotation. Feasibility testing in 45 cadaveric specimens indicates a high degree of accuracy with low incidence of cortical breach. These findings are supported by a separate radiographic morphometric analysis.",
keywords = "atlantoaxial fixation, atlantoaxial instability, biomechanical analysis, C1 posterior arch screw, C1 screw, C1–2 instrumentation, cervical, PAS = posterior arch screw, ROM = range of motion",
author = "Gilbert Cadena and Duong, {Huy T.} and Liu, {Jonathan J.} and Kim, {Kee D}",
year = "2018",
month = "12",
day = "14",
doi = "10.3171/2018.8.SPINE18160",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "314--322",
journal = "Journal of neurosurgery. Spine",
issn = "1547-5654",
publisher = "American Association of Neurological Surgeons",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Atlantoaxial fixation using C1 posterior arch screws

T2 - feasibility study, morphometric data, and biomechanical analysis

AU - Cadena, Gilbert

AU - Duong, Huy T.

AU - Liu, Jonathan J.

AU - Kim, Kee D

PY - 2018/12/14

Y1 - 2018/12/14

N2 - OBJECTIVEC1-2 is a highly mobile complex that presents unique surgical challenges to achieving biomechanical rigidity and fusion. Posterior wiring methods have been largely replaced with segmental constructs using the C1 lateral mass, C1 pedicle, C2 pars, and C2 pedicle. Modifications to reduce surgical morbidity led to the development of C2 laminar screws. The C1 posterior arch has been utilized mostly as a salvage technique, but recent data indicate that this method provides significant rigidity in flexion-extension and axial rotation. The authors performed biomechanical testing of a C1 posterior arch screw (PAS)/C2 pars screw construct, collected morphometric data from a population of 150 CT scans, and performed a feasibility study of a freehand C1 PAS technique in 45 cadaveric specimens.METHODSCervical spine CT scans from 150 patients were analyzed to determine the average C1 posterior tubercle thickness and size of C1 posterior arches. Eight cadavers were used to compare biomechanical stability of intact specimens, C1 lateral mass/C2 pars screw, and C1 PAS/C2 pars screw constructs. Paired comparisons were made using repeated-measures ANOVA and Holm-Sidak tests. Forty-five cadaveric specimens were used to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of the C1 PAS freehand technique.RESULTSMorphometric data showed the average craniocaudal thickness of the C1 posterior tubercle was 12.3 ± 1.94 mm. Eight percent (12/150) of cases showed thin posterior tubercles or midline defects. Average posterior arch thickness was 6.1 ± 1.1 mm and right and left average posterior arch length was 28.7 mm ± 2.53 mm and 28.9 ± 2.29 mm, respectively. Biomechanical testing demonstrated C1 lateral mass/C2 pars and C1 PAS/C2 pars constructs significantly reduced motion in flexion-extension and axial rotation compared with intact specimens (p < 0.05). The C1 lateral mass/C2 pars screw construct provided significant rigidity in lateral bending (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the two constructs in flexion-extension, lateral bending, or axial rotation. Of the C1 posterior arches, 91.3% were successfully cannulated using a freehand technique with a low incidence of cortical breach (4.4%).CONCLUSIONSThis biomechanical analysis indicates equivalent stability of the C1 PAS/C2 pars screw construct compared with a traditional C1 lateral mass/C2 pars screw construct. Both provide significant rigidity in flexion-extension and axial rotation. Feasibility testing in 45 cadaveric specimens indicates a high degree of accuracy with low incidence of cortical breach. These findings are supported by a separate radiographic morphometric analysis.

AB - OBJECTIVEC1-2 is a highly mobile complex that presents unique surgical challenges to achieving biomechanical rigidity and fusion. Posterior wiring methods have been largely replaced with segmental constructs using the C1 lateral mass, C1 pedicle, C2 pars, and C2 pedicle. Modifications to reduce surgical morbidity led to the development of C2 laminar screws. The C1 posterior arch has been utilized mostly as a salvage technique, but recent data indicate that this method provides significant rigidity in flexion-extension and axial rotation. The authors performed biomechanical testing of a C1 posterior arch screw (PAS)/C2 pars screw construct, collected morphometric data from a population of 150 CT scans, and performed a feasibility study of a freehand C1 PAS technique in 45 cadaveric specimens.METHODSCervical spine CT scans from 150 patients were analyzed to determine the average C1 posterior tubercle thickness and size of C1 posterior arches. Eight cadavers were used to compare biomechanical stability of intact specimens, C1 lateral mass/C2 pars screw, and C1 PAS/C2 pars screw constructs. Paired comparisons were made using repeated-measures ANOVA and Holm-Sidak tests. Forty-five cadaveric specimens were used to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of the C1 PAS freehand technique.RESULTSMorphometric data showed the average craniocaudal thickness of the C1 posterior tubercle was 12.3 ± 1.94 mm. Eight percent (12/150) of cases showed thin posterior tubercles or midline defects. Average posterior arch thickness was 6.1 ± 1.1 mm and right and left average posterior arch length was 28.7 mm ± 2.53 mm and 28.9 ± 2.29 mm, respectively. Biomechanical testing demonstrated C1 lateral mass/C2 pars and C1 PAS/C2 pars constructs significantly reduced motion in flexion-extension and axial rotation compared with intact specimens (p < 0.05). The C1 lateral mass/C2 pars screw construct provided significant rigidity in lateral bending (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the two constructs in flexion-extension, lateral bending, or axial rotation. Of the C1 posterior arches, 91.3% were successfully cannulated using a freehand technique with a low incidence of cortical breach (4.4%).CONCLUSIONSThis biomechanical analysis indicates equivalent stability of the C1 PAS/C2 pars screw construct compared with a traditional C1 lateral mass/C2 pars screw construct. Both provide significant rigidity in flexion-extension and axial rotation. Feasibility testing in 45 cadaveric specimens indicates a high degree of accuracy with low incidence of cortical breach. These findings are supported by a separate radiographic morphometric analysis.

KW - atlantoaxial fixation

KW - atlantoaxial instability

KW - biomechanical analysis

KW - C1 posterior arch screw

KW - C1 screw

KW - C1–2 instrumentation

KW - cervical

KW - PAS = posterior arch screw

KW - ROM = range of motion

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063689125&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85063689125&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3171/2018.8.SPINE18160

DO - 10.3171/2018.8.SPINE18160

M3 - Article

C2 - 30554179

AN - SCOPUS:85063689125

VL - 30

SP - 314

EP - 322

JO - Journal of neurosurgery. Spine

JF - Journal of neurosurgery. Spine

SN - 1547-5654

IS - 3

ER -