Literature DB >> 28912022

When does intraoperative 3D-imaging play a role in transpedicular C2 screw placement?

Cornelius Jacobs1, Philip P Roessler2, Sebastian Scheidt2, Milena M Plöger2, Collin Jacobs3, Alexander C Disch4, Klaus D Schaser4, Tony Hartwig5.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The stabilization of an atlantoaxial (C1-C2) instability is demanding due to a complex atlantoaxial anatomy with proximity to the spinal cord, a variable run of the vertebral artery (VA) and narrow C2 pedicles. We perfomed the Goel & Harms fusion in combination with an intraoperative 3D imaging to ensure correct screw placement in the C2 pedicle. We hypothesized, that narrow C2 pedicles lead to a higher malposition rate of screws by perforation of the pedicle wall. The purpose of this study was to describe a certain pedicle size, under which the perforation rate rises. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, all patients (n=30) were operated in the Goel & Harms technique. The isthmus height and pedicle diameter of C2 were measured. The achieved screw position in C2 was evaluated according to Gertzbein & Robbin classification (GRGr).
RESULTS: A statistically significant correlation was found between the pedicles size (isthmus height/pedicle diameter) and the achieved GRGr for the right (p=0.002/p=0.03) and left side (p=0.018/p=0.008). The ROC analysis yielded a Cut Off value for the pedicle size to distinguish between an intact or perforated pedicle wall (GRGr 1 or ≥2). The Cut-Off value was identified for the isthmus height (right 6.1mm, left 5.4mm) and for the pedicle diameter (6.6mm both sides).
CONCLUSION: The hypothesis, that narrow pedicles lead to a higher perforation rate of the pedicle wall, can be accepted. Pedicles of <6.6mm turned out to be a risk factor for a perforation of the pedicle wall (GRGr 2 or higher). Intraoperative 3D imaging is a feasible tool to confirm optimal screw position, which becomes even more important in cases with thin pedicles. The rising risk of VA injury in these cases support the additional use of navigation.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3D-imaging; Atlantoaxial fusion; C1; C2; Goel Harms fusion; Screw placement; Spine

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28912022     DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.09.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Injury        ISSN: 0020-1383            Impact factor:   2.586


  5 in total

1.  Atlantoaxial posterior screw fixation using intra-operative spinal navigation with three-dimensional isocentric C-arm fluoroscopy.

Authors:  Gianpaolo Jannelli; Alessandro Moiraghi; Luca Paun; Victor Cuvinciuc; Andrea Bartoli; Enrico Tessitore
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2022-01-07       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Comparative Analysis of Surgical Outcomes of C1-2 Fusion Spine Surgery between Intraoperative Computed Tomography Image Based Navigation-Guided Operation and Fluoroscopy-Guided Operation.

Authors:  Jun Seok Lee; Dong Wuk Son; Su Hun Lee; Sung Soon Ki; Sang Weon Lee; Geun Sung Song
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2020-02-27

Review 3.  Intraoperative image guidance for cervical spine surgery.

Authors:  Sertac Kirnaz; Harry Gebhard; Taylor Wong; Raj Nangunoori; Franziska Anna Schmidt; Kosuke Sato; Roger Härtl
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-01

4.  Accuracy and Safety of Robot-Assisted versus Fluoroscopy-Guided Posterior C1 Lateral Mass and C2 Pedicle Screw Internal Fixation for Atlantoaxial Dislocation: A Preliminary Study.

Authors:  Jiheng Zhan; Wenke Xu; Jinhao Lin; Jiyao Luan; Yu Hou; Yufeng Wang; Yongjin Li; Bolai Chen; Dingkun Lin; Shudong Chen
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2022-09-12       Impact factor: 3.246

5.  Accuracy and safety of C2 pedicle or pars screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Parisa Azimi; Taravat Yazdanian; Edward C Benzel; Hossein Nayeb Aghaei; Shirzad Azhari; Sohrab Sadeghi; Ali Montazeri
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-07-20       Impact factor: 2.359

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.