Minimally invasive lateral mass plating in the treatment of posterior cervical trauma: surgical technique

OBJECTIVE: The technique of lateral mass fixation restores the posterior tension band and provides effective stabilization in patients with many types of traumatic injuries. However, postoperative wound pain is not uncommon. The objective of this work is to describe a modified technique of minimally invasive lateral mass plating for cervical spine trauma. METHODS: Patient 1 was a 64-year-old woman who had been in a motor vehicle accident and sustained bilateral C5-C6 facet dislocation with posterior C5-C6 distraction. She was otherwise neurologically intact, and attempts at closed reduction were not successful. Patient 2 was a 16-year-old girl who had also been in a motor vehicle accident but had an incomplete spinal cord injury. She had an unstable burst fracture of C7 with posterior C5-C6 distraction. Both patients underwent anterior cervical fusion followed by staged minimally invasive posterior fusion with good results. A dilator tubular retractor system (METRX) was used to access the bilateral lateral masses through a small midline incision under fluoroscopic guidance. Lateral mass screws were then placed by using a modified Magerl technique, securing two-hole plates on each side onto the lateral masses, performed through the METRX system. We also successfully performed four-level lateral mass plating in a cadaveric cervical spine using a 2-cm skin incision. CONCLUSIONS: We describe successful placement of lateral mass screw and plate constructs with the use of a minimally invasive approach by means of a tubular dilator retractor system. This approach preserves the integrity of the muscles and ligaments that maintain the posterior tension band of the cervical spine.     

Cervical transfacet versus lateral mass screws: a biomechanical comparison

The authors directly the compared biomechanical pullout strength of screws placed in the cervical lateral masses to that of screws placed across the facet joints. Posterior cervical fixation with lateral mass plates is an accepted adjunctive technique for cervical spine fusions. Altered anatomy resulting from congenital malformation, tumor, trauma, infection, or failed lateral mass fixation may limit traditional screw placement options. Transfacet screw placement, which has been studied extensively in the lumbar spine, may offer an alternative when posterior cervical fusion is required. Ten fresh human cadaveric cervical spines (postmortem age range, 69 to 91 years) were harvested. On one side, transfacet screws were placed at the C3-4, C5-6, and C7-T1 levels. On the other side, lateral mass screws were placed at the C3, C5, and C7 levels. The screw insertion technique at each level was randomized for right or left. After screw placement, each set of vertebral bodies were dissected and mounted in a custom jig for axial pullout testing using a servohydraulic testing machine. The load-displacement curves were obtained for each screw pullout. The mean pullout strength for the screws placed across the facets was 467 N (range, 192 to 1,176 N). This compares with 360 N (range, 194 to 750 N) for the lateral mass screws (p = 0.008). At each level, transfacet screws exhibited greater pullout resistance compared with the lateral mass placement, but the difference was most pronounced at the C7-T1 level (lateral mass = 373 N, transfacet = 539 N, p = 0.042). Cervical transfacet screw placement provides pullout resistance that is comparable to, if not greater than, lateral mass placement. This type of placement, although technically difficult, may be an alternative to lateral mass screws in cases with unusual anatomy, stripped screws, or when additional intermediate points of fixation are desired.     

寰枢椎脱位后路螺钉固定方法的临床选择

目的 探讨寰枢椎脱位后路钉棒固定术中寰椎螺钉和枢椎螺钉固定方法 的临床选择.方法 对2002 年11 月至2011 年12 月广州军区广州总医院收治的228 例可复性和23 例难复性寰枢椎脱位患者,术前进行置钉可行性和复位可能性评估,针对性地选择寰椎和枢椎的后路螺钉固定方法,进行寰枢椎后路钉棒固定治疗.结果 251 例患者均行钉棒固定并获得满意复位.寰椎螺钉固定采用椎弓根螺钉403 枚、部分经椎弓根螺钉77 枚、侧块螺钉22 枚;枢椎螺钉固定采用椎弓根螺钉437 枚、椎板螺钉56 枚、侧块螺钉9 枚.术中未发生椎动脉、脊髓损伤.237 例患者获得随访,随访时间4～38 个月,平均随访时间13 个月.230 例患者获骨性融合;6例为纤维愈合,动力位片（均随访2 年以上）未见复发脱位;另1 例为假关节未融合并双侧枢椎椎弓根螺钉松动,行后路翻修手术治愈.结论 根据寰枢椎脱位的复位难易程度和个体解剖特点灵活选择寰椎和枢椎不同的后路螺钉固定方法,扩大了寰枢椎后路钉棒固定技术的适用范围,提高了手术安全性和成功率.     

Posterior cervical lateral mass screw fixation: analysis of 1026 consecutive screws in 143 patients

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the results and complications of 1026 consecutive lateral mass screws inserted in 143 patients by a single surgeon. METHODS: Over a 50-month period, a total of 1026 lateral mass screws were placed in 143 patients ages 12-96 years (56 females and 87 males), with these records retrospectively reviewed. Screw position was evaluated by computed tomography (CT) scanning postoperatively, with screw positions assessed for facet, foraminal, or foramen transversarium violation. RESULTS: All screws were placed by a modification of the Anderson technique, but 20 screws were converted to Roy-Camille trajectories because of screw pullout. No patients experienced neural injury or vertebral artery injury as a result of screw placement. Three patients had screw pullouts using the Axis system, which did not require reoperation. Most patients had 14-mm screws placed. Postoperative CT scanning showed no compromise of the foramen transversarium or neural foramen. A total of 94 C7 lateral mass screws were placed without the need for pedicle screws at this level. Forty-four cases were performed with a screw/plate construct with the remainder performed using a polyaxial screw/rod construct. One patient had a symptomatic adjacent-level disc herniation that required surgical intervention. One patient required extension of laminectomy for residual compression. CONCLUSIONS: Lateral mass screw fixation is a safe and effective stabilization technique. This study demonstrates the safety and efficacy of lateral mass cannulation for a range of cervical pathologies with the largest reported series of consecutive lateral mass screws in the literature. In most cases of subaxial disease, nonconstrained plate/screw systems provide a reasonable alternative to polyaxial screw/rod constructs. Most patients can be fixated with 14-mm length x 3.5-mm diameter screws. The C7 lateral mass can be drilled with an adjusted trajectory.     

Biomechanical evaluation of posterior screw fixation in cadaveric cervical spines

Sixteen fresh-frozen spines from cadavers (C4-T1) were randomized on the basis of dual energy xray absorptiometry analysis of bone mineral density. The specimens were subjected to physiologic loads (相似文献   

下颈椎经关节螺钉联合侧块或椎弓根螺钉固定的效果

目的 探讨在下颈椎经颈后正中入路应用经关节螺钉联合侧块螺钉或椎弓根螺钉行内固定治疗的固定效果.方法 2003年2月至2007年10月,对22例患者通过后路应用经关节螺钉联合侧块螺钉或椎弓根螺钉行内固定治疗,男14例,女8例;年龄24～73岁,平均43岁.其中下颈椎创伤性骨折脱位13例,颈椎后纵韧带骨化症4例,颈椎管狭窄伴Ⅱ型齿突骨折1例,颈椎间盘突出伴椎管狭窄4例.结果 共置入经关节螺钉45枚,其中C4,5 2枚,C5,639枚,C6,74枚;共置入侧块螺钉12枚,C3、C4各6枚;共置入椎弓根螺钉41枚,其中C24枚,C32枚,C46枚,C721枚,T18枚.术中所有螺钉均成功置入,未出现椎动脉、神经根和脊髓损伤等置钉相关并发症.22例患者均获随访,随访时间10个月～3年8个月,平均17个月.植骨融合时间3～5个月,平均3.5个月.术后发现1例患者的2枚经关节螺钉松动,部分脱出.经加强颈托制动,术后4个月获得融合.结论 通过后路固定下颈椎时,采用经关节螺钉联合侧块螺钉或椎弓根螺钉固定,均可取得较好的固定效果.     

Lower cervical spine injury treated with lateral mass plates and pedicle screws through posterior approach

Theincidenceofspinalinjuryislessinthelowercervicalsegments(C6 C7)thanintheC3 C6segments.Operationthroughanteriorapproachiscommonlyusedfortheseinjures,butfewerreportsofthelowercervicalspineandspinalcordinjurytreated withcervicallateralmassplatesandT1pedicl…     

A biomechanical comparison of modern anterior and posterior plate fixation of the cervical spine

STUDY DESIGN: A biomechanical study was designed to assess relative rigidity provided by anterior, posterior, or combined cervical fixation using cadaveric cervical spine models for flexion-distraction injury and burst fracture. OBJECTIVES: To compare the construct stability provided by anterior plating with locked fixation screws, posterior plating with lateral mass screws, and combined anterior-posterior fixation in clinically simulated 3-column injury or corpectomy models. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Anterior plating with locked fixation screws is the most recent design and is found to provide better stability than the conventional unlocked anterior plating. However, there are few data on the direct comparison of biomechanical stability provided by anterior plating with locked fixation screws versus posterior plating with lateral mass screws. Biomechanical advantages of using combined anterior-posterior fixation compared with that of using either anterior or posterior fixation alone also have not been well investigated yet. METHODS: Biomechanical flexibility tests were performed using cervical spines (C2-T1) obtained from 10 fresh human cadavers. In group I (5 specimens), one-level, 3-column injury was created at C4-C5 by removing the ligamentum flavum and bilateral facet capsules, the posterior longitudinal ligament, and the posterior half of the intervertebral disc. In group II (5 specimens), complete corpectomy of C5 was performed to simulate burst injury. In each specimen, the intact spine underwent flexibility tests, and the following constructs were tested: (1) posterior lateral mass screw fixation (Axis plate) after injury; (2) polymethylmethacrylate anterior fusion block plus posterior fixation; (3) polymethylmethacrylate block plus anterior (Orion plate) and posterior plate fixation; and (4) polymethylmethacrylate block plus anterior fixation. Rotational angles of the C4-C5 (or C4-C6) segment were measured and normalized by the corresponding angles of the intact specimen to study the overall stabilizing effects. RESULTS: Posterior plating with an interbody graft showed effective stabilization of the unstable cervical segments in all loading modes in all cases. There was no significant stability improvement by the use of combined fixation compared with the posterior fixation with interbody grafting, although combined anterior-posterior fixation tended to provide greater stability than both anterior and posterior fixation alone. Anterior fixation alone was found to fail in stabilizing the cervical spine, particularly in the flexion-distraction injury model in which no contribution of posterior ligaments is available. Anterior plating fixation provided much greater fixation in the corpectomy model than in the flexion-distraction injury model. This finding suggests that preservation of the posterior ligaments may be an important factor in anterior plating fixation. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the posterior plating with interbody grafting is biomechanically superior to anterior plating with locked fixation screws for stabilizing the one-level flexion-distraction injury or burst injury. More rigid postoperative external orthoses should be considered if the anterior plating is used alone for the treatment of unstable cervical injuries. It was also found that combined anterior and posterior fixation may not improve the stability significantly as compared with posterior grafting with lateral mass screws and interbody grafting.     

Percutaneous transarticular atlantoaxial screw fixation using a cannulated screw system and image guidance.

In 2000 a cannulated screw stabilization system for posterior cervical instrumentation was introduced in our department for use in complex cervical fixation procedures. A special feature of the system is the use of thin Kirschner wires for drilling the screw paths and then placing the self-drilling, cannulated screws securely over the wires. Percutaneous application of C1-C2 transarticular screws is possible through tubes. An optional "atlas-claw" provides additional stability in cases of C1-C2 stabilization. 17 patients (10 female, 7 male, mean age 60 years) with complex cervical disorders and instability of different origin were stabilized using the Neon System (Ulrich Co., Ulm, Germany). Pathology included atlantoaxial instability based on rheumatoid arthritis (n = 12), odontoid fracture (n = 4) and os odontoideum mobile (n = 1). Computed navigation (STN 4.0, Zeiss or vector vision spine, brain lab) was used in 14 cases. Transarticular C1-C2 screw fixation was performed in 14 cases (4 patients with direct C1 massa lateralis screw fixation), craniocervical fixation (C0-C2/C3) was done in 3 patients. Percutaneous application of the C1-C2 screws was used in 7 patients. Atlas claws were applied in 8 patients. There was one medial perforation of a C2 pedicle wall and one malposition of the screw in C2 without reaching the lateral mass of C1. After a mean follow-up of 9 months there were no hardware failures and stable fusion in those cases followed after 12 months or more. Clinical results were excellent or good in 14/16 patients. Cannulated screws are an effective alternative in complex stabilization procedures of the cervical spine. The presented system is technically comfortable and allows safe percutaneous screw application as well as inclusion of computed navigation with high accuracy.     

Preliminary experience with a novel facet-based lateral mass drill guide for the placement of lateral mass screws compared to freehand technique: a cadaveric study

BACKGROUND CONTEXTLateral mass screw fixation is the standard for posterior subaxial cervical fixation. Several freehand surgical techniques for placing lateral mass screws have been described which rely on anatomical landmarks and surgeon mastery of the technique to safely place screws. The accuracy of these freehand techniques is inherently variable and can be influenced by a surgeon's level of clinical experience. A novel technique was developed that utilizes the plane of the facet joint to create lateral mass screw pilot holes parallel with the joint line to improve the safety and accuracy of lateral mass screw placement regardless of experience.PURPOSETo assess the safety and accuracy of lateral mass screw placement using a novel lateral mass drill guide instrument (LM Guide), compared to standard freehand technique.STUDY DESIGNRandomized cadaveric study utilizing multiple surgeon evaluators to compare the safety and accuracy of guided cervical lateral mass placement compared to traditional freehand techniques.MATERIALS AND METHODSLateral mass screws were placed from C3 to C7 in 20 cadaver specimens by 8 spine surgeons of varying levels of clinical experience (4 attendings, 4 fellows). Screws were placed bilaterally using standard anatomic landmarks (“freehand”) randomly allocated on one side and using the LM Guide on the other. Cadaveric specimens were imaged with high-resolution CT to assess screw placement. Zone grading for safety was conducted based on screw tip position and clinical severity of screw breach was based on proximity to surrounding neurovascular anatomy. Screws were graded as safe, at-risk, or critical, with at-risk and critical screws considered malpositioned. To assess the accuracy of screw trajectory placed using the LM Guide compared to freehand, sagittal screw angle was measured and compared to an “ideal” screw path parallel to the facet joint line. Freehand and LM Guide groups were compared using Pearson's chi-square correlation.RESULTSScrew placement using the LM guide yielded a significantly lower rate of screw malpositioning, with 7 of 91 (7.7%) compared with 18 of 99 (18.2%) screws placed in the At-Risk or Critical Zones, p<.05. Of the 91 screws inserted using the LM Guide, 84 (92.3%) were in the Safe Zone, 7 (7.7%) were At-Risk, and 0 were in Critical zones. There was no incidence of neural or transverse foramen breaches with the LM Guide. In comparison, for the 99 screws inserted freehand, 81 (81.8%) were Safe, 14 (14.1%) were At-Risk, and 4 (4.1%) were in Critical zones. The 4 Critical zone freehand screw breaches included 1 neural foramen breach, 2 transverse foramen breaches, and 1 facet breach. The LM Guide also resulted in higher accuracy of screw trajectory, as indicated by a significant reduction in sagittal screw angle compared with freehand, p<.01. Notably, in the less-experienced surgeon cohort, the LM Guide significantly reduced the sagittal screw angle and resulted in no critical screw breaches compared to 3 critical breaches with freehand technique suggesting there might be a benefit in decreasing the learning curve associated with lateral mass screw placement.CONCLUSIONSLateral mass screw placement with a novel LM Guide that uses the facet joint to control screw trajectory improved the accuracy and reproducibility of screw placement with a significant reduction in screw breach rate and sagittal screw angle compared to freehand techniques regardless of surgeon experience level.CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCEThe inherent variability of freehand lateral mass screw placement can increase the risk of clinical complications associated with screw malpositioning. The technique presented in this cadaveric study may be a viable alternative to standard freehand technique that can improve the overall safety of lateral mass screw placement.     

枢椎棘突螺钉单侧应用联合对侧椎弓根螺钉固定的有限元分析

目的分析枢椎棘突螺钉单侧应用联合对侧椎弓根螺钉固定在寰枢和枕颈固定中的生物力学稳定性。方法构建正常枢椎解剖、椎板薄和椎动脉变异椎弓根细小3种不同解剖状态下的完整上部颈椎有限元模型作为完整模型组,然后分别模拟齿状突骨折进行寰枢固定和寰椎骨折进行枕颈固定。在寰枢固定中,比较单侧枢椎棘突螺钉+对侧椎弓根螺钉+双侧寰椎侧块螺钉固定组(棘突螺钉组)和枢椎双侧椎弓根螺钉+双侧寰椎侧块螺钉固定组(椎弓根螺钉组);在枕颈固定中,比较单侧枢椎棘突螺钉+对侧椎弓根螺钉+枕骨螺钉固定组(棘突螺钉组)和枢椎双侧椎弓根螺钉+枕骨螺钉固定组(椎弓根螺钉组)。枢椎棘突螺钉分别测试水平、斜向、垂直置钉3种不同的固定技术。模拟颈椎运动,测量枕颈的屈伸、侧屈、旋转的关节活动范围(ROM)。结果在寰枢和枕颈固定中,棘突螺钉组和椎弓根螺钉组的C1~C2屈伸、侧屈、旋转ROM均较完整模型组均明显下降。在寰枢固定中棘突螺钉组C0~C2屈伸、侧屈、旋转的ROM大于椎弓根螺钉组;在枕颈固定中,棘突螺钉组C1~C2侧屈的ROM大于椎弓根螺钉组,棘突螺钉组的C0~C2旋转的ROM大于椎弓根螺钉组。枢椎棘突螺钉分别测试水平、斜向、垂直固定间有差异,但不明显。结论在寰枢和枕颈固定中,枢椎双侧椎弓根螺钉固定和枢椎单侧棘突螺钉联合对侧椎弓根螺钉组合式固定方法均具有良好的稳定性。在寰枢固定中,相对于枢椎棘突螺钉组合式固定,枢椎双侧椎弓根螺钉固定具有更好的寰枢稳定性。在枕颈固定中,枢椎双侧椎弓根螺钉固定在侧屈和旋转活动上较枢椎棘突螺钉组合式固定稳定性更好。枢椎三种棘突螺钉置钉技术间的稳定性差异并不明显。     

Biomechanical comparison of unicortical versus bicortical C1 lateral mass screw fixation

STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical study of pullout strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1 lateral mass screws using a cadaveric cervical spine model. OBJECTIVE: To compare pullout strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1 lateral mass screws. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The internal carotid artery and hypoglossal nerve lie over the anterior aspect of the lateral mass of the atlas and are at risk from bicortical C1 lateral mass screws. Unicortical screws would reduce the risk of injury to these neurovascular structures; however, no data are available on the relative strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1 lateral mass screws. METHODS: Fifteen cadaveric cervical spine specimens underwent axial pullout testing of C1 lateral mass screws. A unicortical C1 lateral mass screw was placed on 1 side with a contralateral bicortical screw. RESULTS: The mean pullout strengths of the unicortical screws and bicortical screws were 588 N (range, 212 to 1234 N) and 807 N (range, 163 to 1460 N), respectively (P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Bicortical C1 lateral mass screws were significantly stronger than unicortical screws; however, the mean pullout strength of both the unicortical and bicortical C1 screws were greater than previously reported values for subaxial lateral mass screws. On the basis of these data, the clinical necessity for using bicortical screw fixation in all patients must be questioned. If similar strength can be achieved using unicortical C1 lateral mass screw to that currently accepted in the subaxial spine, bicortical screws might not be justified for the C1 lateral mass. However, the ability to extrapolate C1-C2 data to subaxial spine data is uncertain because of the difference in normal physiologic loading at these levels.     

Clinical and radiologic outcome of laminar screw at C2 and C7 for posterior instrumentation—review of 25 cases and comparison of C2 and C7 intralaminar screw fixation

BackgroundThe aim of this study is 2-fold: to analyze a clinical case series in which we used laminar screws for cervical posterior instrumentation and to describe the difference between C2 and C7 laminar screws in terms of technique and anatomy.MethodsData were obtained from 25 patients who underwent cervical posterior fixation with intralaminar screws at C2 or C7. C2 intralaminar screw instrumentation was used for 7 patients requiring occipitocervical fixation (basilar invagination [3 patients], C1 unstable bursting fracture [1 patient], C1-C2 instability with occipital assimilation [2 patients], and dystopic os odontoideum [1 patient]), 13 patients with C1-C2 instability, 1 patient with C2-C3 subluxation, and 4 patients undergoing C7 fixation due to pseudoarthrosis or cervical instability after trauma. A total of 34 laminar screws were placed including 1 thoracic laminar screw, and the patients were assessed both clinically and radiographically.ResultsThere were no instances where a screw violated the spinal canal nor any hardware fractures noted during the follow-up period. As for perioperative complications, there were 2 cases of postoperative wound infection, 1 case of dural laceration during dissection, and 2 cases of partial dorsal laminar breach. However, there was no neurologic compromise in any of the cases. The fusion success rate was 100%.ConclusionThese preliminary results support the use of intralaminar screws for posterior instrumentation at C2 and C7.     

Cervical pedicle screws vs. lateral mass screws: uniplanar fatigue analysis and residual pullout strengths

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although successful clinical use of cervical pedicle screws has been reported, anatomical studies have shown the possibility for serious iatrogenic injury. However, there are only a limited number of reports on the biomechanical properties of these screws which evaluate the potential benefits of their application. PURPOSE: To investigate if the pull-out strengths after cyclic uniplanar loading of cervical pedicle screws are superior to lateral mass screws. STUDY DESIGN: An in vitro biomechanical study. METHODS: Twenty fresh-frozen disarticulated human vertebrae (C3-C7) were randomized to receive both a 3.5 mm cervical pedicle screw and lateral mass screw. The screws were cyclically loaded 200 times in the sagittal plane. The amount of displacement was recorded every 50 cycles. After cyclical loading, the screws were pulled and tensile load to failure was recorded. Bone density was measured in each specimen and maximum screw insertion torque was recorded for each screw. RESULTS: During loading the two screw types showed similar stability initially, however the lateral mass screws rapidly loosened compared to the pedicle screws. The rate of loosening in the lateral mass screws was widely variable, while the performance of the pedicle screws was very consistent. The pullout strengths were significantly higher for the cervical pedicle screws (1214 N vs. 332 N) and 40% failed by fracture of the pedicle rather than screw pullout. Pedicle screw pullout strengths correlated with both screw insertion torque and specimen bone density. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical pedicle screws demonstrated a significantly lower rate of loosening at the bone-screw interface, as well as higher strength after fatigue testing. These biomechanical strengths may justify their use in certain limited clinical applications.     

Biomechanical comparison of two-level cervical locking posterior screw/rod and hook/rod techniques.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Locking posterior instrumentation in the cervical spine can be attached using 1) pedicle screws, 2) lateral mass screws, or 3) laminar hooks. This order of options is in order of decreasing technical difficulty and decreasing depth of fixation, and is thought to be in order of decreasing stability. PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether substantially different biomechanical stability can be achieved in a two-level construct using pedicle screws, lateral mass screws, or laminar hooks. Secondarily, we sought to quantify the differential and additional stability provided by an anterior plate. STUDY DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical flexibility experiment comparing three different posterior constructs for stabilizing the cervical spine after three-column injury. METHODS: Twenty-one human cadaveric cervical spines were divided into three groups. Group 1 received lateral mass screws at C5 and C6 and pedicle screws at C7; Group 2 received lateral mass screws at C5 and C6 and laminar hooks at C7; Group 3 received pedicle screws at C5, C6, and C7. Specimens were nondestructively tested intact, after a three-column two-level injury, after posterior C5-C7 rod fixation, after two-level discectomy and anterior plating, and after removing posterior fixation. Angular motion was recorded during flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Posterior hardware was subsequently failed by dorsal loading. RESULTS: Laminar hooks performed well in resisting flexion and extension but were less effective in resisting lateral bending and axial rotation, allowing greater range of motion (ROM) than screw constructs and allowing a significantly greater percentage of the two-level ROM to occur across the hook level than the screw level (p<.03). Adding an anterior plate significantly improved stability in all three groups. With combined hardware, Group 3 resisted axial rotation significantly worse than the other groups. Posterior instrumentation resisted lateral bending significantly better than anterior plating in all groups (p<.04) and resisted flexion and axial rotation significantly better than anterior plating in most cases. Standard deviation of the ROM was greater with anterior than with posterior fixation. There was no significant difference among groups in resistance to failure (p=.74). CONCLUSIONS: Individual pedicle screws are known to outperform lateral mass screws in terms of pullout resistance, but they offered no apparent advantage in terms of construct stability or failure of whole constructs. Larger standard deviations in anterior fixation imply more variability in the quality of fixation. In most loading modes, laminar hooks provided similar stability to lateral mass screws or pedicle screws; caudal laminar hooks are therefore an acceptable alternative posteriorly. Posterior two-level fixation is less variable and slightly more stable than anterior fixation. Combined instrumentation is significantly more stable than either anterior or posterior alone.     

Posterior fixation and fusion with atlas pedicle screw system for upper cervical diseases

Objective： To evaluate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of atlas pedicle screws system fixation and fusion for the treatment of upper cervical diseases.
Methods： Twenty-three consecutive patients with upper cervical disorders requiring stabilization, including 19 cases of atlantoaxial dislocation （4 congenital odontoid disconnections, 6 old odontoid fractures, 4 fresh odontoid fractures of Aderson Ⅱ C, 3 ruptures of the C1 transverse ligament, and 2 fractures of C1）, 2 cases of C2 tumor （instability after the resection of the tumors）, and 2 giant neurilemomas of C2-C3（instability after resection of the tumors）, were treated by posterior fixation and fusion with the atlas pedicle screw system, in which the screws were inserted through the posterior arch of C1. The operative time, bleeding volume and complications were reported. All patients were immobilized without external fixation or with rigid cervical collars for 1-3 months. All patients were followed up and evaluated with radiographs and CT.
Results： In the 23 patients, 46 C1 pedicle screws, 42 C2 pedicle screws and 6 lower cervical lateral mass screws and 2 lower cervical pedicle screws were placed. The mean operative time and bleeding volume was 2.7 hours and 490 ml respectively. No intraoperative complications were directly related to surgical technique. No neurological, vascular or infective complications were encountered. All patients were followed up for 3-36 months （average 15 months）. Firm bony fusion was documented in all patients after 3-6 months. One patient with atlas fracture showed anterior occipitocervical fusion. There was no implant failure. Conclusions： Posterior fixation and fusion of the atlas pedicle screw system is feasible and safe for the treatment of upper cervical diseases, and may be applicable to a larger number of patients.     

Pedicle screw fixation in the cervical spine

Pedicle screw fixation of the lower cervical spine is a new technique that provides an alternative to posterior lateral mass plating. Although biomechanical studies support the use of pedicle screws to reconstruct the cervical spine, placing screws into the small cervical pedicle poses a technical challenge. Penetration of the pedicle is the primary complication associated with screw insertion in the lower cervical spine. Pedicle screw fixation at the C2 and C7 pedicles in conjunction with use of plates for occipitocervical or cervicothoracic plating is becoming an accepted technique; however, pedicle screw fixation should not be routinely used at the C3-C6 levels. It may be indicated in patients who have osteoporotic bone or when rigid internal fixation cannot be achieved by conventional techniques.     

Cervical spine pedicle screws: a biomechanical comparison of two insertion techniques

STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical testing of the pullout strengths of pedicle screws placed by two different techniques in adult human cadaveric cervical spines. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether there is a significant difference in screw purchase of two commonly proposed methods of cervical pedicle screw insertion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Wiring techniques remain the gold standard for posterior cervical fixation. However, absent or deficient posterior elements may dictate the use of alternative fixation techniques. Cervical pedicle screws have been shown to have significantly higher pullout strength than lateral mass screws. METHODS: Fifty fresh disarticulated human vertebrae (C3-C7) were evaluated with computed tomography for anatomic disease and pedicle morphometry. The right and left pedicles were randomly assigned to either a standard method or the Abumi insertion method. In the latter technique the cortex and cancellous bone of lateral mass are removed with a high-speed burr, which provides a direct view of the pedicle introitus. The pedicle is then probed and tapped and a 3.5-mm cortical screw inserted. Each screw was subjected to a uniaxial load to failure. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean pullout resistance between the Abumi (696 N) and standard (636.5 N) insertion techniques (P = 0.41). There was no difference in pullout resistance between vertebral levels or within vertebral levels. Two (4%) minor pedicle wall violations were observed. CONCLUSION: In selected circumstances pedicle screw instrumentation of the cervical spine may be used to manage complex deformities and patterns of instability. Surgeons need not be concerned about reduced screw purchase when deciding between the Abumi method and its alternatives.     

经后路联合使用侧块钢板螺钉和椎弓根钉内固定治疗下颈椎损伤

目的探讨经颈后正中人路联合使用侧块钢板螺钉和T．椎弓根钉内固定手术在治疗下颈椎C6～C7损伤的应用。方法应用此项技术治疗下颈椎损伤8例。其中,C6-7 6例,C7 2例。术前ASIA分级3例为C级,5例为D级。手术采用颈椎侧块钢板螺钉和T1椎弓根钉联合内固定。结果本组8例患者平均随访15个月(5～37个月),术后脊髓损伤无加重,脊髓功能均有改善,无血管、神经并发损伤。结论经颈后正中人路联合颈椎侧块钢板螺钉和椎弓根钉内固定是治疗下颈椎损伤的一种好方法。     

A prospective analysis of intraoperative electromyographic monitoring of posterior cervical screw fixation

OBJECTIVE: This is a prospective study of 26 patients undergoing posterior cervical spine instrumentation with lateral mass or pedicle screws to determine the correlation between intraoperative screw stimulation thresholds and the position of posterior cervical lateral mass and pedicle screws. METHODS: One hundred forty-seven posterior cervical screws (122 lateral mass screws and 25 C7 pedicle screws) in 26 patients were electrically stimulated intraoperatively and stimulation thresholds recorded. Computed tomography (CT) scans were taken postoperatively and were evaluated independently to assess screw position. Electromyographic (EMG) thresholds and CT data were compared to assess the accuracy of the EMG screw stimulation technique in detecting screw malposition. RESULTS: Intraoperative electrical stimulation was accurate in verifying screw position. A stimulation threshold of 15 mA provided a 99% positive predictive value (89% sensitivity, 87% specificity) that the screw was within the lateral mass or pedicle. Stimulation values of 10-15 mA provided a 13% predictive value (66% sensitivity, 90% specificity) that the screw was within the lateral mass or pedicle. A stimulation value of <10 mA provided a 100% predictive value that the screw was malpositioned (70% sensitivity, 100% specificity). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative evoked EMG monitoring is a valuable tool in posterior cervical instrumentation using lateral mass and pedicle screws. Stimulation thresholds in this study correlated with screw position. Stimulation values of >15 mA reliably predict acceptable screw position. Values between 10 and 15 mA are generally associated with acceptable screw position, although exploration is recommended. Values below 10 mA are associated with screw malposition and warrant exploration, repositioning, and possible removal.