Open AccessCOMPARISON OF CONTEMPORARY OCCIPITOCERVICAL INSTRUMENTATION TECHNIQUES WITH AND WITHOUT C1 LATERAL MASS SCREWS
Author(s) -
Christopher E. Wolfla,
Simon Salerno,
Narayan Yoganandan,
Frank A. Pintar
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
operative neurosurgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.791
H-Index - 21
eISSN - 2332-4260
pISSN - 2332-4252
DOI - 10.1227/01.neu.0000289720.04836.fd
Subject(s) - lateral mass , medicine , occiput , cadaver , atlanto axial joint , fixation (population genetics) , instrumentation (computer programming) , orthodontics , basilar invagination , biomechanics , lamina , range of motion , cervical spine , anatomy , surgery , decompression , population , environmental health , computer science , operating system
Objective: This study was designed to test the kinematic properties of three occiput-C2 instrumentation constructs with and without supplemental rigid C1 fixation. The results are compared with intact specimens and with constructs incorporating contemporary cabling techniques. Methods: Five unembalmed human cadaver specimens underwent range of motion (ROM) testing in the intact condition, followed by destabilization with odontoid osteotomy. Destabilized specimens then underwent ROM testing with each of seven occipitocervical instrumentation constructs, all incorporating occipital screws: C1 and C2 sublaminar cables with cable connectors, C2 pars screws +/− C1 lateral mass screws, C2 lamina screws +/− C1 lateral mass screws, and C1–C2 transarticular screws +/− C1 lateral mass screws. Results: All seven constructs demonstrated significantly lower ROM in all loading modes than intact specimens (P < 0.05). With a single exception, the addition of C1 lateral mass screws to the screw-based constructs produced no significant change in ROM in any of the loading modes. Compared with intact specimens, constructs anchored by C1–C2 transarticular screws demonstrated the greatest decrease in ROM, and those anchored by sublaminar cables demonstrated the least decrease in ROM. Conclusion: Any of the tested screw-based constructs are likely to provide adequate support for the patient with an unstable craniocervical junction. Therefore, the choice of construct should be based on anatomic considerations. The routine incorporation of C1 lateral mass screws into occipitocervical instrumentation constructs does not seem necessary.