Chunke Dong1,2, Feng Yang2, Hongyu Wei2, Mingsheng Tan3. 1. Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, 11 North Third Ring Road East, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, China. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, 2 Yinghuadong Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, China. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, 2 Yinghuadong Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, China. zrtanms@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare transoral and endoscopic transnasal anterior release without odontoidectomy and posterior reduction and fixation to treat irreducible atlantoaxial dislocation (IAAD). METHODS: From June 2006 to January 2017, 35 consecutive patients with IAAD underwent transoral (Tr-Oral group) or endoscopic transnasal (Tr-Nasal group) release and posterior fixation and fusion in our department. Clinical neurological recovery (Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score) and radiological reduction parameters including atlantodontoid interval (ADI), space available for the cord (SAC) and cervicomedullary angle (CMA) were analyzed and compared. The operation duration, blood loss, length of intensive care unit (ICU)/hospital stay and complications were recorded. RESULTS: All 35 patients (18 and 17 patients in the Tr-Oral and Tr-Nasal groups, respectively) were followed up for a mean of 36.4 months (range, 21-60 months). All patients achieved excellent anatomical reduction and clinical neurological recovery, with no significant differences between the two groups. The JOA score, ADI, SAC and CMA were not significantly different between the two groups at various postoperative points. Although the Tr-Oral group had shorter operation time and less blood loss than the Tr-Nasal group, the Tr-Nasal group tended to have a significantly shorter hospital/ICU stay, earlier extubation and earlier oral intake than the Tr-Oral group. CONCLUSION: The transoral and endoscopic transnasal approaches can achieve equivalent release and reduction effects when treating IAAD. Compared to the transoral approach, the endoscopic transnasal route is less invasive with earlier extubation and oral intake, shorter hospital/ICU stays and lower medical costs, which is conducive to enhanced recovery after surgery.
PURPOSE: To compare transoral and endoscopic transnasal anterior release without odontoidectomy and posterior reduction and fixation to treat irreducible atlantoaxial dislocation (IAAD). METHODS: From June 2006 to January 2017, 35 consecutive patients with IAAD underwent transoral (Tr-Oral group) or endoscopic transnasal (Tr-Nasal group) release and posterior fixation and fusion in our department. Clinical neurological recovery (Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score) and radiological reduction parameters including atlantodontoid interval (ADI), space available for the cord (SAC) and cervicomedullary angle (CMA) were analyzed and compared. The operation duration, blood loss, length of intensive care unit (ICU)/hospital stay and complications were recorded. RESULTS: All 35 patients (18 and 17 patients in the Tr-Oral and Tr-Nasal groups, respectively) were followed up for a mean of 36.4 months (range, 21-60 months). All patients achieved excellent anatomical reduction and clinical neurological recovery, with no significant differences between the two groups. The JOA score, ADI, SAC and CMA were not significantly different between the two groups at various postoperative points. Although the Tr-Oral group had shorter operation time and less blood loss than the Tr-Nasal group, the Tr-Nasal group tended to have a significantly shorter hospital/ICU stay, earlier extubation and earlier oral intake than the Tr-Oral group. CONCLUSION: The transoral and endoscopic transnasal approaches can achieve equivalent release and reduction effects when treating IAAD. Compared to the transoral approach, the endoscopic transnasal route is less invasive with earlier extubation and oral intake, shorter hospital/ICU stays and lower medical costs, which is conducive to enhanced recovery after surgery.
Authors: Jens Gempt; Jens Lehmberg; Astrid E Grams; Lars Berends; Bernhard Meyer; Michael Stoffel Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2010-12-02 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Vijayabalan Balasingam; Gregory J Anderson; Neil D Gross; Cheng-Mao Cheng; Akio Noguchi; Aclan Dogan; Sean O McMenomey; Johnny B Delashaw; Peter E Andersen Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: José Alberto Landeiro; Sávio Boechat; Daniel de Holanda Christoph; Mariângela Barbi Gonçalves; Igor de Castro; Mario Alberto Lapenta; Carlos Henrique Ribeiro Journal: Arq Neuropsiquiatr Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 1.420
Authors: Michael F Shriver; Varun R Kshettry; Raj Sindwani; Troy Woodard; Edward C Benzel; Pablo F Recinos Journal: Clin Neurol Neurosurg Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 1.876
Authors: Hormuzdiyar H Dasenbrock; Michelle J Clarke; Ali Bydon; Daniel M Sciubba; Timothy F Witham; Ziya L Gokaslan; Jean-Paul Wolinsky Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 4.654