Paul A. Gardner, Juan C. Fernandez-Miranda, Carl H. Snyderman and Eric W. Wang
George A. C. Mendes, Curtis A. Dickman, Nestor G. Rodriguez-Martinez, Samuel Kalb, Neil R. Crawford, Volker K. H. Sonntag, Mark C. Preul and Andrew S. Little
The primary disadvantage of the posterior cervical approach for atlantoaxial stabilization after odontoidectomy is that it is conducted as a second-stage procedure. The goal of the current study is to assess the surgical feasibility and biomechanical performance of an endoscopic endonasal surgical technique for C1–2 fixation that may eliminate the need for posterior fixation after odontoidectomy.
The first step of the study was to perform endoscopic endonasal anatomical dissections of the craniovertebral junction in 10 silicone-injected fixed cadaveric heads to identify relevant anatomical landmarks. The second step was to perform a quantitative analysis using customized software in 10 reconstructed adult cervical spine CT scans to identify the optimal screw entry point and trajectory. The third step was biomechanical flexibility testing of the construct and comparison with the posterior C1–2 transarticular fixation in 14 human cadaveric specimens.
Adequate surgical exposure and identification of the key anatomical landmarks, such as C1–2 lateral masses, the C-1 anterior arch, and the odontoid process, were provided by the endonasal endoscopic approach in all specimens. Radiological analysis of anatomical detail suggested that the optimal screw entry point was on the anterior aspect of the C-1 lateral mass near the midpoint, and the screw trajectory was inferiorly and slightly laterally directed. The custommade angled instrumentation was crucial for screw placement. Biomechanical analysis suggested that anterior C1–2 fixation compared favorably to posterior fixation by limiting flexion-extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending (p > 0.3).
This is the first study that demonstrates the feasibility of an endoscopic endonasal technique for C1–2 fusion. This novel technique may have clinical utility by eliminating the need for a second-stage posterior fixation operation in certain patients undergoing odontoidectomy.
Abstracts of the 2013 Annual Meeting of the AANS/CNS Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves
Phoenix, Arizona • March 6–9, 2013
Ali M. Elhadi, Samuel Kalb, Nikolay L. Martirosyan, Abhishek Agrawal and Mark C. Preul
Within a few months of Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen's discovery of x-rays in 1895, Fedor Krause acquired an x-ray apparatus and began to use it in his daily interactions with patients and for diagnosis. He was the first neurosurgeon to use x-rays methodically and systematically. In 1908 Krause published the first volume of text on neurosurgery, Chirurgie des Gehirns und Rückenmarks (Surgery of the Brain and Spinal Cord), which was translated into English in 1909. The second volume followed in 1911. This was the first published multivolume text totally devoted to neurosurgery. Although Krause excelled in and promoted neurosurgery, he believed that surgeons should excel at general surgery. Importantly, Krause was inclined to adopt technology that he believed could be helpful in surgery. His 1908 text was the first neurosurgical text to contain a specific chapter on x-rays (“Radiographie”) that showed roentgenograms of neurosurgical procedures and pathology. After the revolutionary discovery of x-rays by Röntgen, many prominent neurosurgeons seemed pessimistic about the use of x-rays for anything more than trauma or fractures. Krause immediately seized on its use to guide and monitor ventricular drainage and especially for the diagnosis of tumors of the skull base. The x-ray images contained in Krause's “Radiographie” chapter provide a seminal view into the adoption of new technology and the development of neurosurgical technique and are part of neurosurgery's heritage.
Ali M. Elhadi, Samuel Kalb, Luis Perez-Orribo, Andrew S. Little, Robert F. Spetzler and Mark C. Preul
The field of anatomy, one of the most ancient sciences, first evolved in Egypt. From the Early Dynastic Period (3100 bc) until the time of Galen at the end of the 2nd century ad, Egypt was the center of anatomical knowledge, including neuroanatomy. Knowledge of neuroanatomy first became important so that sacred rituals could be performed by ancient Egyptian embalmers during mummification procedures. Later, neuroanatomy became a science to be studied by wise men at the ancient temple of Memphis. As religious conflicts developed, the study of the human body became restricted. Myths started to replace scientific research, squelching further exploration of the human body until Alexander the Great founded the city of Alexandria. This period witnessed a revolution in the study of anatomy and functional anatomy. Herophilus of Chalcedon, Erasistratus of Chios, Rufus of Ephesus, and Galen of Pergamon were prominent physicians who studied at the medical school of Alexandria and contributed greatly to knowledge about the anatomy of the skull base. After the Royal Library of Alexandria was burned and laws were passed prohibiting human dissections based on religious and cultural factors, knowledge of human skull base anatomy plateaued for almost 1500 years. In this article the authors consider the beginning of this journey, from the earliest descriptions of skull base anatomy to the establishment of basic skull base anatomy in ancient Egypt.