Literature DB >> 20887141

Subaxial sagittal alignment and adjacent-segment degeneration after atlantoaxial fixation performed using C-1 lateral mass and C-2 pedicle screws or transarticular screws.

Go Yoshida1, Mituhiro Kamiya, Hisatake Yoshihara, Tokumi Kanemura, Fumihiko Kato, Yasutugu Yukawa, Keigo Ito, Yukihiro Matsuyama, Yoshihito Sakai.   

Abstract

OBJECT: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a fixed atlantoaxial angle on subaxial sagittal alignment, and that of atlantoaxial fixation on adjacent-segment motion and degeneration.
METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed 65 patients in whom atlantoaxial instability was treated with atlantoaxial fixation by C-1 lateral mass and C-2 pedicle screw fixation (30 patients, Goel-Harms [GH] group) or a combination of transarticular screw fixation and posterior wiring (35 patients, Magerl-Brooks [MB] group). Angles of Oc–C1, C1–2, C2–3, and C2–7 were determined based on an upright lateral radiograph in flexion, neutral, and extension positions. The range of motion (ROM) at Oc–C1 and C2–3 was also determined. All patients were examined before and 2 years after surgery.
RESULTS: The mean preoperative atlantoaxial angles in the GH and MB groups were 20.9 ± 8.3° and 18.3 ± 7.2°, respectively, and the mean postoperative atlantoaxial angles in the same groups were 23.5 ± 5.6° and 29.7 ± 6.3°, respectively, with a statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (p < 0.05). The mean preoperative angles of C2–7 in the GH and MB groups were 15.4 ± 7.8° and 13.7 ± 9.5°, respectively, and after surgery, the angles were 11.8 ± 12° and 2.48 ± 12°, respectively, with a statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (p < 0.05). The postoperative angle of C1–2 showed a negative correlation with the extent of change observed in the C2–7 angle pre- and postoperatively in each of these 2 surgical procedures. The Oc–C1 ROM increased after surgery in both groups, but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.38). The C2–3 ROM decreased after surgery in both groups, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Atlantoaxial fixation in a hyperlordotic position produced kyphotic sagittal alignment after surgery in both GH and MB groups. Reduction of the atlantoaxial joint can be easily achieved through screw fixation at an optimal angle, thereby ameliorating the risk for subsequent subaxial kyphosis. Degeneration of lower adjacent segments appeared to be less with this procedure compared with using a combination of transarticular screw fixation and posterior wiring.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20887141     DOI: 10.3171/2010.4.SPINE09662

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  11 in total

Review 1.  [Normal sagittal profile of the cervical spine - must the cervical spine always be lordotic?]

Authors:  M Akbar; H Almansour; B Diebo; D Adler; W Pepke; M Richter
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  Complications and outcomes of posterior fusion in children with atlantoaxial instability.

Authors:  Ryoji Tauchi; Shiro Imagama; Zenya Ito; Kei Ando; Kenichi Hirano; Akio Muramoto; Hiroki Matsui; Fumihiko Kato; Yasutsugu Yukawa; Koji Sato; Tokumi Kanemura; Hisatake Yoshihara; Mitsuhiro Kamiya; Yukihiro Matsuyama; Naoki Ishiguro
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-11-24       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Rheumatoid vertical and subaxial subluxation can be prevented by atlantoaxial posterior screw fixation.

Authors:  Go Yoshida; Mitsuhiro Kamiya; Yasutsugu Yukawa; Tokumi Kanemura; Shiro Imagama; Yukihiro Matsuyama; Naoki Ishiguro
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Biomechanical comparison of a novel transoral atlantoaxial anchored cage with established fixation technique - a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Bao-cheng Zhang; Hai-bo Liu; Xian-hua Cai; Zhi-hua Wang; Feng Xu; Hui Kang; Ran Ding; Xiao-qing Luo
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2015-09-22       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Comparison of Cervical Alignment and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Os Odontoideum versus Non-Os Odontoideum after Atlantoaxial Fixation.

Authors:  Farid Yudoyono; Jiin Kang; Yoon Ha
Journal:  Korean J Spine       Date:  2017-12-31

6.  Occipital Erosion as a Late Complication Following Atlantoaxial Fixation: A Case Report.

Authors:  Satoshi Nagatani; Junichi Ohya; Taiki Yasukawa; Yuichi Yoshida; Yuki Onishi; Junichi Kunogi; Naohiro Kawamura
Journal:  Spine Surg Relat Res       Date:  2021-06-11

7.  Correlations of Cervical Sagittal Alignment before and after Occipitocervical Fusion.

Authors:  Yoshitaka Matsubayashi; Takachika Shimizu; Hirotaka Chikuda; Katsushi Takeshita; Yasushi Oshima; Sakae Tanaka
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2015-09-05

8.  Influence of Atlantoaxial Fusion on Sagittal Alignment of the Occipitocervical and Subaxial spines in Os Odontoideum with Atlantoaxial Instability.

Authors:  Byung-Wan Choi; Jong-Beom Park; Jong-Won Kang; Do-Gyun Kim; Han Chang
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2019-01-24

9.  Relationship between the atlantodental interval and T1 slope after atlantoaxial fusion in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Byeong Jin Ha; Yu Deok Won; Je Il Ryu; Myung-Hoon Han; Jin Hwan Cheong; Jae Min Kim; Hyoung-Joon Chun; Koang-Hum Bak; In-Suk Bae
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2020-11-04       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Reducible Nonunited Type II Odontoid Fracture with Atlantoaxial Instability: Outcomes of Two Different Fixation Techniques.

Authors:  Torphong Bunmaprasert; Vorapop Trirattanapikul; Nantawit Sugandhavesa; Areerak Phanphaisarn; Wongthawat Liawrungrueang; Phichayut Phinyo
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-07-28       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.