Evolution from microscopic transoral to endoscopic endonasal odontoidectomy.

OBJECT: The goal of this study was to compare the indications, benefits, and complications between the endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) and the microscopic transoral approach to perform an odontoidectomy. Transoral approaches have been standard for odontoidectomy procedures; however, the potential benefits of the EEA might be demonstrated to be a more innocuous technique. The authors present their experience with 12 consecutive cases that required odontoidectomy and posterior instrumentation. METHODS: Twelve consecutive cases of craniovertebral junction instability with or without basilar invagination were diagnosed at the National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery in Mexico City, Mexico, between January 2009 and January 2013. The EEA was used for 5 cases in which the odontoid process was above the nasopalatine line, and was compared with 7 cases in which the odontoid process was beneath the nasopalatine line; these were treated using the transoral microscopic approach (TMA). Odontoidectomy was performed after occipital-cervical or cervical posterior augmentation with lateral mass and translaminar screws. One case was previously fused (Oc-C4 fusion). The senior author performed all surgeries. American Spinal Injury Association scores were documented before surgical treatment and after at least 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Neurological improvement after odontoidectomy was similar for both groups. From the transoral group, 2 patients had postoperative dysphonia, 1 patient presented with dysphagia, and 1 patient had intraoperative CSF leakage. The endoscopic procedure required longer surgical time, less time to extubation and oral feeding, a shorter hospital stay, and no complications in this series. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic endonasal odontoidectomy is a feasible, safe, and well-tolerated procedure. In this small series there was no difference in the outcome between the EEA and the TMA; however, fewer complications were documented with the endonasal technique.

C2 medial pedicle screw: a novel "in-out-in" technique as an alternative option for posterior C2 fixation in cases with a narrow C2 isthmus.

OBJECTIVE: The authors describe a novel "in-out-in" technique as an alternative option for posterior C2 screw fixation in cases that involve narrow C2 isthmus. Here, they report the preliminary radiological and clinical outcomes in 12 patients who had a minimum 12-month follow-up period. METHODS: Twelve patients with basilar invagination and atlantoaxial dislocation underwent atlantoaxial reduction and fixation. All patients had unilateral hypoplasia of the C2 isthmus that prohibited insertion of pedicle screws. A new method, the C2 medial pedicle screw (C2MPS) fixation, was used as an alternative. In this technique, the inner cortex of the narrow C2 isthmus was drilled to obtain space for screw insertion, such that the lateral cortex could be well preserved and the risk of vertebral artery injury could be largely reduced. The C2MPS traveled along the drilled inner cortex into the anterior vertebral body, achieving a 3-column fixation of the axis with multicortical purchase. RESULTS: Satisfactory C2MPS placement and reduction were achieved in all 12 patients. No instance of C2MPS related vertebral artery injury or dural laceration was observed. There were no cases of implant failure, and solid fusion was demonstrated in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: This novel in-out-in technique can provide 3-column rigid fixation of the axis with multicortical purchase. Excellent clinical outcomes with low complication rates were achieved with this technique. When placement of a C2 pedicle screw is not possible due to anatomical constraints, the C2MPS can be considered as an efficient alternative.

Posterior revision surgery using an intraarticular distraction technique with cage grafting to treat atlantoaxial dislocation associated with basilar invagination.

OBJECTIVE: The treatment of atlantoaxial dislocation (AAD) and basilar invagination (BI) is challenging, especially in symptomatic patients with a history of previous surgery. Although seldom reported, posterior revision surgery to revise prior constructs can be advantageous over an anterior or combined approach. The authors describe their experience in performing posterior revision surgery using Goel's technique. METHODS: The authors reviewed patients with AAD and BI who had undergone previous posterior surgery at the cranio-cervical junction between January 2016 and September 2017. All of these patients underwent revision surgery from a posterior approach. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score was used to assess clinical symptoms before and after surgery. The distance from the tip of the odontoid to Chamberlain's line, atlantodental interval (ADI), and clivus-canal angle (CCA) were used for radiographic assessment before and after surgery. RESULTS: Twelve consecutive patients were reviewed. Prior surgeries were as follows: 4 patients (4/12) with posterior osseous decompression without fusion, 7 (7/12) with reduction and fusion without decompression, and 1 (1/12) with posterior osseous decompression and reduction and fusion. With the use of Goel's technique for revision in these cases, distraction using facet spacers afforded release of the anterior soft tissue from a posterior approach. The occiput was fixated to C2 using a cantilever technique, and autologous cancellous bone was grafted into the intraarticular joints. In all 12 patients, complete reduction of BI and AAD were achieved without injury to nerves or vessels. All patients had evidence of bony fusion on CT scans within 18 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Posterior revision surgery using Goel's technique is an effective and safe revision salvage surgery for symptomatic patients with AAD and BI.

Giant intracranial aneurysms of the posterior circulation and their relation to the brainstem: analysis of risk factors for neurological deficits.

OBJECTIVE: Giant posterior circulation aneurysms (GPCirAs) usually cause substantial mass effect on the brainstem, which may lead to neurological deficits. So far, there has been no systematic investigation of factors associated with such deficits in GPCirA. The authors aim to examine the risk factors for cranial nerve deficit (CND), motor deficit, and disability in patients with GPCirA. METHODS: Using MR images obtained in 30 patients with unruptured GPCirA, the authors examined GPCirA volume, presence of hydrocephalus or partial thrombosis (PT) of the aneurysm, and the degree of brainstem displacement measured by the distance between the McRae line and the tip of the GPCirA (∆MT). They evaluated associations between these factors and neurological deficits. RESULTS: Thirty GPCirAs in 30 patients were included. The prevalence of CNDs was 50%. Patients with CNDs significantly differed from those without CNDs in terms of age (mean 51.0 years [SD 15.0 years] vs 69.0 years [SD 21.0 years], p = 0.01) and in ∆MT (median 50.7 mm [IQR 39.2-53.9 mm] vs 39.0 mm [IQR 32.3-45.9 mm], p = 0.02). The prevalence of motor deficits was 33.3%. Patients with motor deficits showed a larger ∆MT (median 50.5 mm [IQR 40.8-54.6 mm]) compared with those without (∆MT: median 39.1 mm [IQR 32.8-50.5 mm], p = 0.04). GPCirA volume was larger in patients with poor modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores (median 14.9 cm3 [IQR 8.6-18.7 cm3]) than in those with mRS scores of 0-2 (median 6.8 cm3 [IQR 4.4-11.7 cm3], p = 0.03). After adjusting for patient age and the occurrence of hydrocephalus or PT, the authors found that higher degrees of disability were significantly associated with aneurysm volume (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.0-1.3; p = 0.04), but not with ∆MT. The occurrence of CND or motor deficit was not associated with any of the examined variables. There was no correlation between GPCirA volume and ∆MT (rs = 0.01, p = 0.96). The prevalence of neurological deficits did not differ between GPCirA at the basilar apex, the basilar trunk, the vertebrobasilar junction, or the vertebral artery. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the neurological condition of the patients was associated only with GPCirA volume and not with the degree of brainstem displacement, the occurrence of PT or hydrocephalus, or the exact location of the GPCirA. These findings highlight the clinical relevance of GPCirA volume and suggest that factors such as brainstem displacement or PT should play less of a role when finding arguments for or against treatment of GPCirA.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT02066493 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Revisiting the differences between irreducible and reducible atlantoaxial dislocation in the era of direct posterior approach and C1-2 joint manipulation.

OBJECTIVE The current management of atlantoaxial dislocation (AAD) focuses on the C1-2 joints, commonly approached through a posterior route. The distinction between reducible AAD (RAAD) and irreducible AAD (IrAAD) seems to be less important in modern times. The roles of preoperative traction and dynamic radiographs are questionable. This study evaluated whether differentiating between the 2 groups is important in today's era. METHODS Ninety-six consecutive patients with congenital AAD (33 RAAD and 63 IrAAD), who underwent surgery through a posterior approach alone, were studied. The preoperative and follow-up clinical statuses for both groups were studied and compared using Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores. The radiological findings of the 2 groups were compared, and the intraoperative challenges described. RESULTS A poor preoperative JOA score (clinical status) was seen in one-fifth of patients with IrAAD, although the mean JOA score was nearly similar in the RAAD and IrAAD groups. There was significant improvement in follow-up JOA score in both groups. However, segmentation defects (such as an assimilated arch of the atlas and C2-3 fusion) and anomalous vertebral arteries were found significantly more often in cases of IrAAD compared with those of RAAD. Os odontoideum was commonly seen in the RAAD group. The C1-2 joints were acute in IrAAD compared with RAAD. Preoperative traction in IrAAD resulted in vertical distraction and improvement in clinical and respiratory status. Surgery for IrAAD required much more drilling and manipulation of the C1-2 joints while safeguarding the anomalous vertebral artery. CONCLUSIONS Bony and vascular anomalies were much more common in patients with IrAAD, which made surgery more challenging than it was in RAAD despite similar approaches. An irreducible dislocation seen on preoperative radiographs made surgeons aware of difficulties that were likely to be encountered and helped them to better plan the surgery. Distraction achieved through preoperative traction reaffirmed the feasibility of intraoperative reduction. This made the differentiation between the 2 groups and the use of preoperative traction equally important.

The importance of atlantoaxial fixation after odontoidectomy.

OBJECT Although anterior odontoidectomy has been widely accepted as a procedure for decompression of the craniovertebral junction (CVJ), postoperative biomechanical instability has not been well addressed. There is a paucity of data on the necessity for and choice of fixation. METHODS The authors conducted a retrospective review of consecutively treated patients with basilar invagination who underwent anterior odontoidectomy and various types of posterior fixation. Posterior fixation included 1 of 3 kinds of constructs: occipitocervical (OC) fusion with atlantoaxial (AA) fixation, OC fusion without AA fixation, or AA-only (without OC) fixation. On the basis of the use or nonuse of AA fixation, these patients were assigned to either the AA group, in which the posterior fixation surgery involved both the atlas and axis simultaneously, regardless of whether the patient underwent OC fusion, or the non-AA group, in which the OC fusion construct spared the atlas, axis, or both. Clinical outcomes and neurological function were compared. Radiological results at each time point (i.e., before and after odontoidectomy and after fixation) were assessed by calculating the triangular area causing ventral indentation of the brainstem in the CVJ. RESULTS Data obtained in 14 consecutively treated patients with basilar invagination were analyzed in this series; the mean follow-up time was 5.75 years. The mean age was 53.58 years; there were 7 males and 7 females. The AA and non-AA groups consisted of 7 patients each. The demographic data of both groups were similar. Overall, there was significant improvement in neurological function after the operation (p = 0.03), and there were no differences in the postoperative Nurick grades between the 2 groups (p = 1.00). According to radiological measurements, significant decompression of the ventral brainstem was achieved stepwise in both groups by anterior odontoidectomy and posterior fixation; the mean ventral triangular area improved from 3.00 ± 0.86 cm2 to 2.08 ± 0.51 cm2 to 1.68 ± 0.59 cm2 (before and after odontoidectomy and after fixation, respectively; p < 0.05). The decompression gained by odontoidectomy (i.e., reduction of the ventral triangular area) was similar in the AA and non-AA groups (0.66 ± 0.42 cm2 vs 1.17 ± 1.42 cm2, respectively; p = 0.38). However, the decompression achieved by posterior fixation was significantly greater in the AA group than in the non-AA group (0.64 ± 0.39 cm2 vs 0.17 ± 0.16 cm2, respectively; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS Anterior odontoidectomy alone provides significant decompression at the CVJ. Adjuvant posterior fixation further enhances the extent of decompression after the odontoidectomy. Moreover, posterior fixation that involves AA fixation yields significantly more decompression of the ventral brainstem than OC fusion that spares AA fixation.