Posterior C2 Fixation Using Bilateral, Crossing C2 Laminar Screws

2004 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 158-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neill M. Wright
Keyword(s):  
2014 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 621
Author(s):  
Kejian Lian ◽  
Dasheng Lin ◽  
Zhenqi Ding ◽  
Yanjie Guo
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 121 ◽  
pp. e70-e76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rui Zong ◽  
Teng Li ◽  
Lenian Lu ◽  
Guangyu Qiao ◽  
Xinguang Yu

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nitin Bhatia ◽  
Asheen Rama ◽  
Brandon Sievers ◽  
Ryan Quigley ◽  
Michelle H. McGarry ◽  
...  

Study Design: Biomechanical, cadaveric study. Objectives: To compare the relative stiffness of unilateral C1 lateral mass-C2 intralaminar fixation to intact specimens and bilateral C1 lateral mass-C2 intralaminar constructs. Methods: The biomechanical integrity of a unilateral C1 lateral mass-C2 intralaminar screw construct was compared to intact specimens and bilateral C1 lateral mass-C2 intralaminar screw constructs. Five human cadaveric specimens were used. Range of motion and stiffness were tested to determine the stiffness of the constructs. Results: Unilateral fixation significantly decreased flexion/extension range of motion compared to intact ( P < .001) but did not significantly affect axial rotation ( P = .3) or bending range of motion ( P = .3). There was a significant decrease in stiffness in extension for both unilateral and bilateral fixation techniques compared to intact ( P = .04 and P = .03, respectively). There was also a significant decrease in stiffness for ipsilateral rotation for the unilateral construct compared to intact ( P = .007) whereas the bilateral construct significantly increased ipsilateral rotation stiffness compared to both intact and unilateral fixation ( P < .001). Conclusion: Bilateral constructs did show improved biomechanical properties compared to the unilateral constructs. However, unilateral C1-C2 fixation using a C1 lateral mass and C2 intralaminar screw-rod construct decreased range of motion and improved stiffness compared to the intact state with the exception of extension and ipsilateral rotation. Hence, a unilateral construct may be acceptable in clinical situations in which bilateral fixation is not possible, but an external orthosis may be necessary to achieve a fusion.


2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Harati ◽  
Rolf Schultheiß
Keyword(s):  

2007 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 244-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald A. Lehman ◽  
Rick C. Sasso
Keyword(s):  

2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (8) ◽  
pp. e96-e100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean L. Labbe ◽  
Olivier Peres ◽  
Olivier Leclair ◽  
Renaud Goulon ◽  
Patrice Scemama ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 140 ◽  
pp. e212-e218
Author(s):  
Teng Li ◽  
Chao Ma ◽  
Yue-Qi Du ◽  
Guang-Yu Qiao ◽  
Xin-Guang Yu ◽  
...  

Spine ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. E33-E37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael T. Benke ◽  
Joseph R. OʼBrien ◽  
Alexander W. L. Turner ◽  
Warren D. Yu

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yun-lin Chen ◽  
Xu-dong Hu ◽  
Yang Wang ◽  
Wei-yu Jiang ◽  
Wei-hu Ma

Abstract Background Whether an unstable C1 burst fracture should be treated surgically or conservatively is controversial. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and motion-preserving function of temporary fixation of C1-2 screw-rod system for the reduction and fixation of unstable C1 burst fracture (type 3 and 4 according to the Gehweiler classification).Patients and Methods We retrospectively reviewed 10 patients who were treated with posterior temporary C1-C2 fixation. We assessed age at surgery, gender, pre- and post-operative VAS, NDI, atlanto-dens interval, lateral mass distance and rotation function of C1-C2 complex.Results 6 males and 4 females were included in our study. The average follow-up duration was 14.1± 1.37 months. The left-to-right ROMs of C1-C2 rotation was 9.6±1.42°. The pre-operative cervical VAS was 8.30±0.48; the post-operative cervical VAS of C1-C2 fusion was 2.90±0.57. The pre-operative VAS for removal was 2.0±0.00, the post-operative VAS for removal was 2.3±0.48; The pre-operative cervical NDI was 81.40%±2.07%, the post-operative cervical NDI of C1-C2 fusion was 18.10%±1.52%. The preoperative NDI for removal was 15.9%±1.20%, The post-operative NDI for removal was 14.5%±1.08%. The pre-operative ADI was 4.43±0.34mm, post-operative ADI was 1.94±0.72mm. The pre-operative LMD was 6.36±0.58mm, post-operative LMD was 1.64±0.31mm.Conclusion Posterior temporary C1-2 fixation can achieve a good fusion, satisfied reduction of C1 burst fracture, relieve the pain, improve the cervical function outcome, but may reduce the rotational ROM of C1-2. Temporary C1- C2 fixation is an alternative technique to manage the C1 burst fracture, but the need for implant removal needs to be questioned. For patients with CT scan before implant removal showing spontaneous fusion, they may potentially not profit from implant removal.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document