Anatomical feasibility of C-2 pedicle screw fixation: the effect of variable angle interpolation of axial CT scans

Clinical article

Lauren M. Burke M.D., Warren D. Yu M.D., Anthony Ho M.D., Timothy Wagner B.S., and Joseph R. O'Brien M.D., M.P.H.
View More View Less
  • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, George Washington University, Washington, DC
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online

Object

Anatomical variability of the C-2 pedicle poses a challenge for C-2 fixation. The use of multidimensional CT scanning is not widely used but might be an asset to preoperative planning. Careful preoperative planning is imperative for instrumentation at C-2. Fine-cut, noncontrast CT scanning is a useful tool for delineating anatomy; however, the axis of the images is not always along the anatomical axis of the vertebra in question. The authors evaluated the suitability of C-2 pedicles for screw placement by using OsiriX (Pixmeo) software to change the gantry angle of CT angiograms to measure the anatomical dimensions of the C-2 pedicle.

Methods

The authors conducted a retrospective review of CT angiograms of the head and neck from 47 trauma patients seen consecutively at George Washington University Hospital. For each patient, 3 independent observers determined length and width of each C-2 pedicle (94 samples) by using OsiriX. OsiriX is a DICOM viewer that enables navigation and visualization in multidimensional imaging, such as 3D imaging, which was used for this study. Sex-specific measurements were also determined. Vertebral anatomy was studied to determine whether aberrant anatomy would preclude pedicle fixation. Statistical analyses were performed.

Results

Of the 47 patients, 27 were male. Overall mean C-2 pedicle widths and lengths were 8.272 ± 1.364 mm and 27.052 ± 3.471 mm, respectively. The average widths and lengths of the pedicle in female patients were 8.040 ± 1.262 mm and 27.241 ± 2.731 mm, respectively, and those in male patients were 8.444 ± 1.414 mm and 26.913 ± 3.933 mm, respectively. The sex difference was statistically significant for width (p = 0.012) but not for length (p = 0.41). On the basis of width, the percentages of pedicles that could tolerate a 3.5-mm and 4.0-mm screw were 98% and 97%, respectively. Vertebral anatomy precluded screw length greater than 14 mm for only 3 patients.

Conclusions

Using multidimensional CT or 3D imaging, the authors found that C-2 pedicles in over 90% of patients could tolerate 3.5-mm and 4.0-mm pedicle screws. Vertebral anatomy precluded use of screw lengths greater than 14 mm for only 3 (6%) of 47 patients. Therefore, the C-2 pedicle might be more tolerant of fixation than previously reported.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Alosh H, , Parker SL, , McGirt MJ, , Gokaslan ZL, , Witham TF, & Bydon A, et al.: Preoperative radiographic factors and surgeon experience are associated with cortical breach of C2 pedicle screws. J Spinal Disord Tech 23:914, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Benke MT, , O'Brien JR, , Turner AW, & Yu WD: Biomechanical comparison of transpedicular versus intralaminar C2 fixation in C2-C6 subaxial constructs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:E33E37, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Bhatnagar R, , Yu WD, , Bergin PF, , Matteini LE, & O'Brien JR: The anatomic suitability of the C2 vertebra for intralaminar and pedicular fixation: a computed tomography study. Spine J 10:896899, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Dickman CA, & Sonntag VK: Posterior C1–C2 transarticular screw fixation for atlantoaxial arthrodesis. Neurosurgery 43:275281, 1998

  • 5

    Dmitriev AE, , Lehman RA Jr, , Helgeson MD, , Sasso RC, , Kuhns C, & Riew DK: Acute and long-term stability of atlantoaxial fixation methods: a biomechanical comparison of pars, pedicle, and intralaminar fixation in an intact and odontoid fracture model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:365370, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Harms J, & Melcher RP: Posterior C1–C2 fusion with polyaxial screw and rod fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:24672471, 2001

  • 7

    Helgeson MD, , Lehman RA Jr, , Dmitriev AE, , Kang DG, , Sasso RC, & Tannoury C, et al.: Accuracy of the freehand technique for 3 fixation methods in the C-2 vertebrae. Neurosurg Focus 31:4 E11, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Igarashi T, , Kikuchi S, , Sato K, , Kayama S, & Otani K: Anatomic study of the axis for surgical planning of transarticular screw fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 408:162166, 2003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Jeanneret B, & Magerl F: Primary posterior fusion C1/2 in odontoid fractures: indications, technique, and results of transarticular screw fixation. J Spinal Disord 5:464475, 1992

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Mandel IM, , Kambach BJ, , Petersilge CA, , Johnstone B, & Yoo JU: Morphologic considerations of C2 isthmus dimensions for the placement of transarticular screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:15421547, 2000

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Mummaneni PV, , Lu DC, , Dhall SS, , Mummaneni VP, & Chou D: C1 lateral mass fixation: a comparison of constructs. Neurosurgery 66:3 Suppl 153160, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Naderi S, , Arman C, , Güvençer M, , Korman E, , Senoğlu M, & Tetik S, et al.: An anatomical study of the C-2 pedicle. J Neurosurg Spine 1:306310, 2004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Onibokun A, , Khoo LT, , Bistazzoni S, , Chen NF, & Sassi M: Anatomical considerations for cervical pedicle screw insertion: the use of multiplanar computerized tomography measurements in 122 consecutive clinical cases. Spine J 9:729734, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Parker SL, , McGirt MJ, , Garcés-Ambrossi GL, , Mehta VA, , Sciubba DM, & Witham TF, et al.: Translaminar versus pedicle screw fixation of C2: comparison of surgical morbidity and accuracy of 313 consecutive screws. Neurosurgery 64:5 Suppl 2 343349, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Smith ZA, , Bistazzoni S, , Onibokun A, , Chen NF, , Sassi M, & Khoo LT: Anatomical considerations for subaxial (C2) pedicle screw placement: a radiographic study with computed tomography in 93 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 23:176179, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Wang MY: C2 crossing laminar screws: cadaveric morphometric analysis. Neurosurgery 59:1 Suppl 1 ONS84ONS88, 2006

  • 17

    Wang S, , Wang C, , Wood KB, , Yan M, & Zhou H: Radiographic evaluation of the technique for C1 lateral mass and C2 pedicle screw fixation in three hundred nineteen cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:38, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Wright NM: Translaminar rigid screw fixation of the axis. Technical note. J Neurosurg Spine 3:409414, 2005

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 399 103 4
Full Text Views 101 5 1
PDF Downloads 185 4 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0