Are there advantages in cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) with minimal posterolateral fusion (PLF) compared to conventional PLF in posterior cervical fusion?

Objective: We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF). Methods: Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb's angles and C2-7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between two groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by CT scan. Results: Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb's angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1˚ ± 4.0 and -9.7˚ ± 8.4 respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p=0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p<0.001). Conclusion: Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.

Compromised Accuracy of Stereotactic Target Delineation Associated with Computed Tomography-Based Frame Registration: A Comparative Analysis of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Computed Tomography Fusion.

INTRODUCTION: Recent advancements in stereotactic neurosurgical techniques have become increasingly reliant on image-based target planning. We devised a case-phantom comparative analysis to evaluate the target registration errors arising during the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-computed tomography (CT) image fusion process. METHODS: For subjects whose preoperative MRI and CT images both contained fiducial frame localizers, we investigated discrepancies in target coordinates derived from frame registration based on either MRI or CT. We generated a phantom target through an image fusion process, merging the framed CT images with their corresponding reference MRIs after masking their fiducial indicators. This phantom target was then compared with the original during each instance of target planning. RESULTS: In our investigative study with 26 frame registrations, a systematic error in the y-axis was observed as -0.89 ± 0.42 mm across cases using either conventional CT and/or cone-beam CT (O-arm). For the z-axis, errors varied on a case-by-case basis, recording at +0.64 ± 1.09 mm with a predominant occurrence in those merged with cone-beam CT. Collectively, these errors resulted in an average Euclidean error of 1.33 ± 0.93 mm. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the accuracy of frame-based stereotactic planning is potentially compromised during MRI-CT fusion process. Practitioners should recognize this issue, underscoring a pressing need for strategies and advancements to optimize the process.