Monoaxial Screws Versus Polyaxial Screws Osteosynthesis for Unstable Atlas Fractures: A Retrospective, Comparative Study With a Minimum Follow-Up of 3 years.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to compare the radiological parameters, clinical outcomes, and long-term effects of the posterior osteosynthesis with polyaxial screw-rod system and the monoaxial screw-rod system in the treatment of unstable atlas fractures. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 33 patients with posterior ORIF for unstable atlas fractures in our hospital from August 2013 to June 2020, with a minimum of 3 years of follow-up. Polyaxial screws (group A) were used in 12 patients and monoaxial screws (group B) in 21 patients. Perioperative data, radiological parameters, and clinical outcomes were collected and compared between the 2 surgical approaches. RESULTS: The operative time, blood loss, time of screw-rod system placement, and hospital stay were significantly lower in group A than in group B. At the last follow-up, the visual analog scale (VAS) score and anterior arch reduction rate of the atlas in group A were lower than those in group B, while the lateral mass displacement (LMD) in group A was higher than that in group B. There was no significant difference between Group A and Group B in terms of the anterior atlantodental interval (AADI), posterior arch reduction rate of the atlas, range of motion (ROM), and neck disability index (NDI). CONCLUSIONS: Monoaxial screws can achieve better reduction results for unstable atlas fractures, especially for the anterior arch of atlas. However, the surgical operation of monoaxial screws is more complicated than that of polyaxial screws and has more complications. Appropriate implants should be selected for the treatment of unstable atlas fractures based on the type of atlas fracture, the experience of surgeons, and the demands of patients.

Direct osteosynthesis in the treatment of atlas burst fractures: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The treatment of unstable atlas fractures remains a controversial topic. The study aims at assessing the prognosis and efficacy of osteosynthesis for unstable atlas fractures through a review of the current literature and additionally aims to compare outcomes between the transoral and posterior approaches. METHODS: A systematic review of databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang was conducted. Titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers to identify studies meeting pre-defined inclusion criteria for comprehensive analysis. RESULTS: The systematic review included 28 articles, 19 employing the posterior approach and 9 utilizing the transoral approach. It covered osteosynthesis in 297 patients with unstable atlas fractures, comprising 169 treated via the posterior approach and 128 via the transoral approach. Analysis revealed high healing rates and clinical improvement in both approaches, evidenced by improvements in the visual analog scale, range of motion, atlantodens interval, and lateral displacement distance post-surgery. CONCLUSION: Osteosynthesis offers effective treatment for unstable atlas fractures. Both transoral and posterior approaches can achieve good clinical outcomes for fracture, and biomechanical studies have confirmed that osteosynthesis can maintain the stability of the occipitocervical region, preserve the motor function of the atlantoaxial and occipito-atlantoaxial joints, and greatly improve the quality of life of patients. However, variations exist in the indications and surgical risks associated with each method, necessitating their selection based on a thorough clinical evaluation of the patient's condition.

Design of a novel lateral mass screw-plate system for the treatment of unstable atlas fractures: a finite element analysis.

BACKGROUND: Osteosynthesis of unstable atlas fractures preserves joint motion and therefore has a distinct advantage over a range of treatment procedures. To prevent the potential disadvantages associated with osteosynthesis, a new atlas lateral mass screw-plate (LMSP) system has been designed. However, the biomechanical role of using the LMSP system in atlas internal fixation is not known. The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical stability of a new LMSP with traditional posterior screw and rod (PSR) fixation techniques on the occipitocervical junction (C0-C2) through finite element analysis. METHODS: A nonlinear C0-C2 finite element model of the intact upper cervical spine was developed and validated. The unstable model using the PSR system was then compared with the model using the LMSP system for fixation. A vertical load of 40 N was applied to the C0 to simulate head weight, while a torque of 1.5 Nm was applied to the C0 to simulate flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. RESULTS: The range of motion of both systems was close to the intact model. Compared with the LMSP system model, the PSR system model increased flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation by 4.9%, 3.0%, 5.0%, and 29.5% in the C0-C1 segments, and 4.9%, 2.7%, 2.4%, and 22.6% in the C1-C2, respectively. In flexion, extension, and lateral bending motion, the LMSP system model exhibited similar stress to the PSR system model, while in axial rotation, the PSR system model exhibited higher stress. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of our study indicate that the two tested system models provide comparable stability. However, better stability was achieved during axial rotation with the LMSP system, and in this system, the maximum von Mises stress was less than that of the PSR one. As the atlantoaxial joint functions primarily as a rotational joint, the use of the LMSP system may provide a more stable environment for the joint that has become unstable due to fracture.

Clinical application of spinal robot in cervical spine surgery: safety and accuracy of posterior pedicle screw placement in comparison with conventional freehand methods.

The novel robot-assisted (RA) technique has been utilized increasingly to improve the accuracy of cervical pedicle screw placement. Although the clinical application of the RA technique has been investigated in several case series and comparative studies, the superiority and safety of RA over conventional freehand (FH) methods remain controversial. Meanwhile, the intra-pedicular accuracy of the two methods has not been compared for patients with cervical traumatic conditions. This study aimed to compare the rate and risk factors of intra-pedicular accuracy of RA versus the conventional FH approach for posterior pedicle screw placement in cervical traumatic diseases. A total of 52 patients with cervical traumatic diseases who received cervical screw placement using RA (26 patients) and FH (26 patients) techniques were retrospectively included. The primary outcome was the intra-pedicular accuracy of cervical pedicle screw placement according to the Gertzbin-Robbins scale. Secondary outcome parameters included surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative hospital stay, and complications. Moreover, the risk factors that possibly affected intra-pedicular accuracy were assessed using univariate analyses. Out of 52 screws inserted using the RA method, 43 screws (82.7%) were classified as grade A, with the remaining 7 (13.5%) and 2 (3.8%) screws classified as grades B and C. In the FH cohort, 60.8% of the 79 screws were graded A, with the remaining screws graded B (21, 26.6%), C (8, 10.1%), and D (2, 2.5%). The RA technique showed a significantly higher rate of optimal intra-pedicular accuracy than the FH method (P = 0.008), but there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of clinically acceptable accuracy (P = 0.161). Besides, the RA technique showed remarkably longer surgery time, less postoperative drainage, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and equivalent intraoperative blood loss and complications than the FH technique. Furthermore, the univariate analyses showed that severe obliquity of the lateral atlantoaxial joint in the coronal plane (P = 0.003) and shorter width of the lateral mass at the inferior margin of the posterior arch (P = 0.014) were risk factors related to the inaccuracy of C1 screw placement. The diagnosis of HRVA (P < 0.001), severe obliquity of the lateral atlantoaxial joint in the coronal plane (P < 0.001), short pedicle width (P < 0.001), and short pedicle height (P < 0.001) were risk factors related to the inaccuracy of C2 screw placement. RA cervical pedicle screw placement was associated with a higher rate of optimal intra-pedicular accuracy to the FH technique for patients with cervical traumatic conditions. The severe obliquity of the lateral atlantoaxial joint in the coronal plane independently contributed to high rates of the inaccuracy of C1 and C2 screw placements. RA pedicle screw placement is safe and useful for cervical traumatic surgery.

C1 anatomy and dimensions relative to pedicle screw placement.

The recent C1 pedicle screw technique for upper cervical vertebral stabilization allows longer screws to be implanted by setting the screw entry point through the posterior arch of C1, which could provide better biomechanics. However, there is controversy regarding the placement of C1 pedicle screws at different angles. We retrospectively reviewed the computed tomography (CT) scans of 300 patients. The trajectories of medial inclination of 0°, 5°, 10°, and 15° and trajectory of the maximum medial inclination angle were designed for each C1 pedicle on CT images. Screw track length at each angle, the angle of maximum medial inclination, pedicle height, distance from the screw entry point to the midpoint of the C1 posterior tubercle, and screw perforation rate at each angle were measured. The average maximum inclination angle was 17.01°, the maximum inclination angle screw track length was 31.05 mm, and the distance from the screw entry point to the midpoint of the C1 posterior nodule was 21.65 mm. The screw perforation rate was 46.73% at 15° of medial inclination, but only 5.61% at 10°, and no screw perforation at 5°. 26.47% C1 pedicle height < 4 mm. There was no significant difference between the measured data on the left and right sides(P > 0.05), and the measurement of female patients was usually smaller and significantly different from that of male patients(p < 0.05). Our data indicate that a reasonable screw inclination angle of 10° and the safety zone of screw angle can provide safety and avoid screw perforation. However, personalized measurement before surgery is essential.

Robot-Assisted Percutaneous Lag Screw Osteosynthesis for C1 Lateral Mass Fractures: Case Series and Technical Note.

BACKGROUND: C1 lateral mass fractures (LMF) cause abnormal alignment of the upper cervical joints. Conservatively treated cases can develop into late cock-robin junction, requiring a reconstructive surgical procedure of the occipitocervical junction. Partial coronal C1 LMF could be effectively fixed with lag screws. Navigation and robot-assisted techniques have made percutaneous fixation possible and are gradually being used in the upper cervical spine. METHODS: Five consecutive patients with C1 LMF who underwent percutaneous lag screw osteosynthesis under the guidance of a new robotic system were reviewed retrospectively. Preoperative and postoperative computed tomography scans were used to specify the fracture types and to assess the efficacy of fracture reduction. The medical records were reviewed. RESULTS: Among the 5 patients, 4 underwent percutaneous lag screw reduction and fixation with the assistance of the robotic system through a posterior approach and 1 patient underwent a transoral approach. No intraoperative complications, such as screw malposition, neurologic deficit, and vertebral artery injury, occurred. Satisfactory fracture reduction and bone healing were achieved at postoperative follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted percutaneous lag screw osteosynthesis is a viable option for C1 LMF. Different approaches can be selected according to the distribution of the fracture lines. With the posterior approach, the guidewire tends to deviate from the entry point because of skiving, and the technical problems need to be further solved. Screw implant by a transoral approach is comparatively easy to achieve, but the possibly of infection exists and should be monitored.

Posterior osteosynthesis with a new self-designed lateral mass screw-plate system for unstable atlas burst fractures.

BACKGROUND: In the treatment of unstable atlas fractures using the combined anterior-posterior approach or the posterior monoaxial screw-rod system, factors such as severe trauma or complex surgical procedures still need to be improved despite the favourable reduction effect. This research described and evaluated a new technique for the treatment of unstable atlas fracture using a self-designed lateral mass screw-plate system. METHODS: A total of 10 patients with unstable atlas fractures using this new screw-plate system from January 2019 to December 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent posterior open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with a self-designed screw-plate system. The medical records and radiographs before and after surgery were noted. Preoperative and postoperative CT scans were used to determine the type of fracture and evaluate the reduction of fracture. RESULTS: All 10 patients were successfully operated with this new system, with an average follow-up of 16.7 ± 9.6 months. A total of 10 plates were placed, and all 20 screws were inserted into the atlas lateral masses. The mean operating time was 108.7 ± 20.1 min and the average estimated blood loss was 98.0 ± 41.3 ml. The lateral mass displacement (LMD) averaged 7.1 ± 1.9 mm before surgery and almost achieved satisfactory reduction after surgery. All the fractures achieved bony healing without reduction loss or implant failure. No complications (vertebral artery injury, neurologic deficit, or wound infection) occurred in these 10 patients. At the final follow-up, the anterior atlantodens interval (AADI) was 2.3 ± 0.8 mm and the visual analog scale (VAS) was 0.6 ± 0.7 on average. All patients preserved almost full range of motion of the upper cervical spine and achieved a good clinical outcome at the last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Posterior osteosynthesis with this new screw-plate system can provide a new therapeutic strategy for unstable atlas fractures with simple and almost satisfactory reduction.

Posterior osteosynthesis with monoaxial lateral mass screw-rod system for unstable C1 burst fractures.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Surgical treatment for unstable atlas fractures has evolved in recent decades from C1-C2 or C0-C2 fusion to motion-preservation techniques of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). However, regardless of a transoral or a posterior approach, the reduction is still not satisfactory. PURPOSE: The article describes and evaluates a new technique for treating unstable atlas fractures by using a monoaxial screw-rod system. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective study. PATIENT SAMPLE: The sample includes adult patients with unstable C1 fractures treated with a posterior monoaxial screw-rod system. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures included a visual analog pain scale, radiographic reduction (lateral mass displacement [LMD]), maintenance of reduction, C1-C2 instability (anterior atlantodens interval), and complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From August 2013 to May 2016, nine consecutive patients with unstable atlas fractures were retrospectively reviewed. All patients were treated with posterior ORIF by using a monoaxial screw-rod system. The medical records and the preoperative and postoperative radiographs were reviewed. Preoperative and postoperative computed tomography scans were used to specify the fracture types and to assess the reduction. RESULTS: All nine patients with a mean age of 50.3 years successfully underwent surgery with this technique, and a follow-up of 17.4±9.3 months was performed. Transverse atlantal ligament (TAL) injury was found in eight of the nine patients: one of type I and seven of type II. The preoperative LMD averaged 7.0±2.2 mm and was restored completely after surgery; all the fractures achieved bony healing without loss of reduction or implant failure. None of the patients had complications of neurologic deficit, vertebral artery injury, or wound infection associated with the surgical procedure. Two patients complained of greater occipital nerve neuralgia after the operation, which gradually disappeared in 1 month. All patients had a well-preserved range of motion of the upper cervical spine at the final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Posterior osteosynthesis with a monoaxial screw-rod system is capable of an almost anatomical reduction for the unstable atlas fractures. The TAL incompetence may not be a contraindication to ORIF for C1 fractures, but the long-term effect of C1-C2 instability remains to be further investigated.

Surgical management of the fractures of axis body: indications and surgical strategy.

PURPOSE: The axis body fractures are relatively uncommon and have a variety of presentations. Surgical management to them has been only reported as case reports or included as a minor part of clinical management. The objective of this study is to summarize the indications for surgery and report the clinical outcome of surgical treatment based on different fracture patterns. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 28 consecutive patients presenting with the axis body fractures was undertaken. The indications for surgical treatment were defined as: (1) fractures associated with instability of adjacent joints; (2) irreducible displaced superior articular facet fracture; (3) fractures resulting in spinal cord compression. The fractures were classified as sagittal, coronal, transverse and lateral mass fracture. One of the following surgical procedures was applied according to the fracture pattern: posterior C1-C2 pedicle screws fixation and fusion (I); posterior C1-C3 screws fixation and fusion (II); posterior osteosynthesis with C2 transpedicular half-thread lag screws (III). RESULTS: 13 patients were successfully managed operatively. Two transverse and two unilateral lateral mass fractures were treated with surgical procedure I, five sagittal fractures with II, four coronal fractures with III. Complications of malposition of screws and neurologic deficit did not occur during operation. Satisfactory reduction and bony union were demonstrated on postoperative radiographics. CONCLUSIONS: Conservative treatment is still advocated as primary management for most axis body fractures. But for patients with obvious adjacent joints instability or irreducible displaced superior articular facet fracture, surgical intervention based on the different fracture pattern is necessary.

[The application of C1-2 pedicle screw fixation in treating atlantoaxial instability].

OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility of C1-2 pedicle screw fixation and fusion technique in treating atlantoaxial instability. METHODS: From January 2006 to January 2009,18 patients with atlantoaxial instability were treated with C1-2 pedicle screws and plates fixation under general anesthesia. There were 11 males and 7 females, the age for 17-62 years with the mean of 37.7 years. The course of disease was from 3 days to 30 months with an average of 10.6 months. The patients had different degrees neck pain and disturbance of sensation or (and) dyskinesia, had atlantoaxial instability from images before operation. The JOA scoring before operation were from 8 to 15 with an average of 11.4. Bone fusion of patients was observed with X-rays, CT and MR image at the same time after operation and the JOA scoring was compared with preoperative. RESULTS: A total of 72 screws were successfully placed in 18 cases, among them, 15 cases were followed up from 6 to 24 months with an average of 11.5 months. Fifteen cases obtained bone fusion with time for 3-6 months without the complications of internal fixation failure or redislocation of atlas. The spinal compression had differently improved, postoperative JOA scoring was from 12 to 17 scores with an average of 14.5 scores. CONCLUSION: Pedicle screw fixation and fusion in atlas has advantages of firm fixation and high fusion rate, it is a better choices for atlantoaxial instability. It is not suitable for variations of sulcus of vertebral artery of atlas and posterior arch of atlas.