Pedicle versus laminar screws: what provides more suitable C2 fixation in congenital C2–3 fusion patients?

被引:1
作者
Shenglin Wang
Chao Wang
Peter G. Passias
Ming Yan
Haitao Zhou
机构
[1] Peking University Third Hospital,Orthopaedic Department
[2] Hospital for Special Surgery,Orthopaedic Surgery Department
来源
European Spine Journal | 2010年 / 19卷
关键词
Klippel–Feil; Congenital C2–3 fusion; Occipitocervical fixation; Pedicle screw; Laminar screw;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Patients with Klippel–Feil syndrome (KFS) have congenital fusions of at least 1 cervical motion segment, and often present with compensatory hypermobility or symptomatic stenosis of the cranio-vertebral junction which requires occipitocervical reconstruction and fusion. One subgroup of KFS patients in which this is particularly common is those with isolated C2–3 congenital fusion (C2–3 CF). The anatomic suitability for C2 pedicle and laminar screw placement had been analyzed in the general adult population, and guidelines for their techniques had been established. However, the feasibility and safety of the two techniques in KFS patients with congenital C2–3 fusion has not been reported. This radiographic study was performed to evaluate the feasibility of these two widely used methods in such patients. We recruited 108 patients with atlantoaxial dislocation and reconstructed CTs were performed. Among them, 53 had C2–C3 congenital fusion diagnosed as KFS and 55 had normal cervical segmentation (NCS). The maximum possible diameters and length were measured along the ideal screw trajectories. Both of mean diameters and lengths of the C2 laminar screw trajectory in the C2–3 CF group were significantly larger than that in NCS. Mean diameters of the C2 pedicle screw trajectory in this group were significantly smaller than that in NCS group, however, C2–3 CF patients had longer pedicle paths than NCS. In the C2–3 CF group, all 53 cases had suitable trajectory for C2 laminar screw, while 21 (39.6%) had a pedicle diameter less than 4.5 mm. In the NCS group, 5 cases (9.1%) had a pedicle diameter less than 4.5 mm. All 108 cases had sufficient diameters for C2 laminar screw placement. Klippel–Feil patients with C2–3 CF are good candidates for the technique of C2 laminar screw. Preoperative radiography should be carefully evaluated and the option of C2 fixation be determined with a thorough consideration in these patients.
引用
收藏
页码:1306 / 1311
页数:5
相关论文
共 87 条
  • [1] Abumi K(1999)Posterior occipitocervical reconstruction using cervical pedicle screws and plate-rod systems Spine 24 1425-1434
  • [2] Takada T(2006)Anatomic considerations for the placement of C2 laminar screws Spine 31 2767-2771
  • [3] Shono Y(1996)Patterned expression in familial Klippel–Feil syndrome Teratology 53 152-157
  • [4] Kaneda K(2009)Correlation between computed tomography measurements and direct anatomic measurements of the axis for consideration of C2 laminar screw placement Spine J 9 258-262
  • [5] Fujiya M(1996)Anatomic consideration of C2 pedicle screw placement Spine 21 691-695
  • [6] Cassinelli EH(2008)The cervical end of an occipitocervical fusion: a biomechanical evaluation of 3 constructs. Laboratory investigation J Neurosurg Spine 9 296-300
  • [7] Lee M(2005)Constructs incorporating intralaminar C2 screws provide rigid stability for atlantoaxial fixation Spine 30 1513-1518
  • [8] Skalak A(2001)Posterior C1–2 fusion with polyaxial screw and rod fixation Spine 26 2467-2471
  • [9] Ahn NU(2008)Congenital osseous anomalies of the upper cervical spine J Bone Jt Surg (Am) 90 337-348
  • [10] Wright NM(2006)Biomechanical comparison of four C1 to C2 rigid fixative techniques: anterior transarticular, posterior transarticular, C1 to C2 pedicle, and C1 to C2 intralaminar screws Neurosurgery 58 516-521