scholarly journals Tulip-Screw Head Disjunction from Posterior C2 Fracture Fixation Instrumentation

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Halle E. K. Burley ◽  
Darius S. Ansari ◽  
Alexander von Glinski ◽  
Ryan Goodmanson ◽  
Benjamin Schell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Alcohol Intoxication ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Open Reduction Internal Fixation ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Low Profile ◽  
C2 Fracture ◽  
Instrumentation Failure ◽  
Treatment Alternatives ◽  
Acute Neck Pain

This report presents an unusual case of instrumentation failure after posterior fixation of a C2 fracture and reviews currently available treatment alternatives. The patient, a 53-year-old female, initially presented to the emergency department at an outside facility with acute alcohol intoxication and acute neck pain following a fall from a ladder. CT demonstrated bilateral C2 pars fractures and unstable posteroinferior displacement of the posterior elements. She underwent an emergent C2 open-reduction internal fixation (ORIF) at the outside facility with 3.5 mm polyaxial synapse pedicle screws (DePuy Synthes, Switzerland). There were no known complications and the patient was discharged. Two years after the index operation, cervical CT scan at a different facility revealed that although the fracture was fully healed, bilateral tulip caps had detached from the pedicle screw heads at C2. All implants were removed without postoperative complications. Industry review of alternate lag screws approved for the cervical spine demonstrated that there is not currently an ideal implant for fixation of C2 fractures without fusion. Cannulated trauma screws, which are low profile and would have avoided the instrumentation failure seen here, are not currently FDA approved for the cervical spine.

Management of The Cervical Spine Tuberculosis

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
Sabri Ibrahim
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Spinal Tuberculosis ◽  
Intervertebral Disk ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Vertebral Bodies ◽  
Intervertebral Disk Space ◽  
Developed Nations

Tuberculosis of the cervical spine is a rare clinical condition (10%), most commonly affected lower thoracic region (40-50% of the cases). Spinal tuberculosis is a destructive form of tuberculosis. It accounts for approximately half of all cases of musculoskeletal tuberculosis. Spinal tuberculosis is more common in children and young adults. The incidence of spinal tuberculosis is increasing in developed nations. Characteristically, there is a destruction of the intervertebral disk space and the adjacent vertebral bodies, collapse of the spinal elements, and anterior wedging leading to kyphosis and gibbus formation. For the diagnosis of spinal tuberculosis, magnetic resonance imaging is more sensitive than x-ray and more specific than computed tomography. Magnetic resonance imaging frequently demonstrates an involvement of the vertebral bodies on either side of the disk, disk destruction, cold abscess, vertebral collapse, and presence of vertebral column deformities. Anti-tuberculous treatment remains the cornerstone of treatment. Surgery may be required in selected cases, e.g. large abscess formation, severe kyphosis, an evolving neurological deficit, or lack of response to medical treatment. The quality of debridement and bony fusion is optimal when the anterior approach is used. Posterior fixation is the best means of achieving reduction followed by stable sagittal alignment over time. With early diagnosis and early treatment, the prognosis is generally good.

Posterior Temporary C1-2 Pedicle Screws Fixation for the Treatment of Unstable C1-2 Complex Fractures: Minimum of 2-Year Follow-Up

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822110391
Author(s):  
Yakubu Ibrahim ◽  
Hao Li ◽  
Geng Zhao ◽  
Suomao Yuan ◽  
Yiwei Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Internal Fixation ◽  
Neck Disability Index ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Rotary Motion ◽  
Upper Cervical Spine ◽  
Complex Fractures ◽  
Upper Cervical ◽  
Better Than

Study Design: Retrospective. Objectives: To present rarely reported complex fractures of the upper cervical spine (C1-C2) and discuss the clinical results of the posterior temporary C1-2 pedicle screws fixation for C1-C2 stabilization. Methods: A total of 19 patients were included in the study (18 males and 1 female). Their age ranged from 23 to 66 years (mean age of 39.6 years). The patients were diagnosed with complex fractures of the atlas and the axis of the upper cervical spine and underwent posterior temporary C1-2 pedicle screws fixation. The patients underwent a serial postoperative clinical examination at approximately 3, 6, 9 months, and annually thereafter. The neck disability index (NDI) and the range of neck rotary motion were used to evaluate the postoperative clinical efficacy of the patients. Results: The average operation time and blood loss were 110 ± 25 min and 50 ± 12 ml, respectively. The mean follow-up was 38 ± 11 months (range 22 to 60 months). The neck rotary motion before removal, immediately after removal, and the last follow-up were 68.7 ± 7.1°, 115.1 ± 11.7°, and 149.3 ± 8.9° ( P < 0.01). The NDI scores before and after the operation were 42.7 ± 4.3, 11.1 ± 4.0 ( P < 0.01), and the NDI score 2 days after the internal fixation was removed was 7.3 ± 2.9, which was better than immediately after the operation ( P < 0.01), and 2 years after the internal fixation was removed. The NDI score was 2.0 ± 0.8, which was significantly better than 2 days after the internal fixation was taken out ( P < 0.001). Conclusions: Posterior temporary screw fixation is a good alternative surgical treatment for unstable C1-C2 complex fractures.

Transfacet screw placement for posterior fixation of C-7

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 200-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric M. Horn ◽  
Nicholas Theodore ◽  
Neil R. Crawford ◽  
Nicholas C. Bambakidis ◽  
Volker K. H. Sonntag
Keyword(s):  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Lateral Mass ◽  
Screw Insertion ◽  
Novel Technique ◽  
Hardware Failures

Object Lateral mass screws are traditionally used to fixate the subaxial cervical spine, while pedicle screws are used in the thoracic spine. Lateral mass fixation at C-7 is challenging due to thin facets, and placing pedicle screws is difficult due to the narrow pedicles. The authors describe their clinical experience with a novel technique for transfacet screw placement for fixation at C-7. Methods A retrospective chart review was undertaken in all patients who underwent transfacet screw placement at C-7. The technique of screw insertion was the same for each patient. Polyaxial screws between 8- and 10-mm-long were used in each case and placed through the facet from a perpendicular orientation. Postoperative radiography and clinical follow-up were analyzed for aberrant screw placement or construct failure. Results Ten patients underwent C-7 transfacet screw placement between June 2006 and March 2007. In all but 1 patient screws were placed bilaterally, and the construct lengths ranged from C-3 to T-5. One patient with a unilateral screw had a prior facet fracture that precluded bilateral screw placement. There were no intraoperative complications or screw failures in these patients. After an average of 6 months of follow-up there were no hardware failures, and all patients showed excellent alignment. Conclusions The authors present the first clinical demonstration of a novel technique of posterior transfacet screw placement at C-7. These results provide evidence that this technique is safe to perform and adds stability to cervicothoracic fixation.

scholarly journals Utility of intraoperative electromyography in placing C7 pedicle screws

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 891-899 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan J. Rasouli ◽  
Brooke T. Kennamer ◽  
Frank M. Moore ◽  
Alfred Steinberger ◽  
Kevin C. Yao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Thoracolumbar Spine ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Neurological Injury ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Subaxial Cervical Spine ◽  
Increased Risk

OBJECTIVEThe C7 vertebral body is morphometrically unique; it represents the transition from the subaxial cervical spine to the upper thoracic spine. It has larger pedicles but relatively small lateral masses compared to other levels of the subaxial cervical spine. Although the biomechanical properties of C7 pedicle screws are superior to those of lateral mass screws, they are rarely placed due to increased risk of neurological injury. Although pedicle screw stimulation has been shown to be safe and effective in determining satisfactory screw placement in the thoracolumbar spine, there are few studies determining its utility in the cervical spine. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility, clinical reliability, and threshold characteristics of intraoperative evoked electromyographic (EMG) stimulation in determining satisfactory pedicle screw placement at C7.METHODSThe authors retrospectively reviewed a prospectively collected data set. All adult patients who underwent posterior cervical decompression and fusion with placement of C7 pedicle screws at the authors’ institution between January 2015 and March 2019 were identified. Demographic, clinical, neurophysiological, operative, and radiographic data were gathered. All patients underwent postoperative CT scanning, and the position of C7 pedicle screws was compared to intraoperative neurophysiological data.RESULTSFifty-one consecutive C7 pedicle screws were stimulated and recorded intraoperatively in 25 consecutive patients. Based on EMG findings, 1 patient underwent intraoperative repositioning of a C7 pedicle screw, and 1 underwent removal of a C7 pedicle screw. CT scans demonstrated ideal placement of the C7 pedicle screw in 40 of 43 instances in which EMG stimulation thresholds were > 15 mA. In the remaining 3 cases the trajectories were suboptimal but safe. When the screw stimulation thresholds were between 11 and 15 mA, 5 of 6 screws were suboptimal but safe, and in 1 instance was potentially dangerous. In instances in which the screw stimulated at thresholds ≤ 10 mA, all trajectories were potentially dangerous with neural compression.CONCLUSIONSIdeal C7 pedicle screw position strongly correlated with EMG stimulation thresholds > 15 mA. In instances, in which the screw stimulates at values between 11 and 15 mA, screw trajectory exploration is recommended. Screws with thresholds ≤ 10 mA should always be explored, and possibly repositioned or removed. In conjunction with other techniques, EMG threshold testing is a useful and safe modality in determining appropriate C7 pedicle screw placement.

scholarly journals The use of intraoperative navigation for complex upper cervical spine surgery

2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. E5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kern H. Guppy ◽  
Indro Chakrabarti ◽  
Amit Banerjee
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Navigation System ◽  
Surgical Navigation ◽  
Spinal Instrumentation ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Upper Cervical Spine ◽  
Cervical Canal ◽  
Lateral Mass ◽  
Upper Cervical ◽  
Lateral Mass Screws

Imaging guidance using intraoperative CT (O-arm surgical imaging system) combined with a navigation system has been shown to increase accuracy in the placement of spinal instrumentation. The authors describe 4 complex upper cervical spine cases in which the O-arm combined with the StealthStation surgical navigation system was used to accurately place occipital screws, C-1 screws anteriorly and posteriorly, C-2 lateral mass screws, and pedicle screws in C-6. This combination was also used to navigate through complex bony anatomy altered by tumor growth and bony overgrowth. The 4 cases presented are: 1) a developmental deformity case in which the C-1 lateral mass was in the center of the cervical canal causing cord compression; 2) a case of odontoid compression of the spinal cord requiring an odontoidectomy in a patient with cerebral palsy; 3) a case of an en bloc resection of a C2–3 chordoma with instrumentation from the occiput to C-6 and placement of C-1 lateral mass screws anteriorly and posteriorly; and 4) a case of repeat surgery for a non-union at C1–2 with distortion of the anatomy and overgrowth of the bony structure at C-2.

scholarly journals P.091 Anterior surgical fixation for cervical spine flexion-distraction injuries

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (S2) ◽  
pp. S36-S37
Author(s):  
AS Jack ◽  
G Choy ◽  
G Hardy St-Pierre ◽  
R Fox ◽  
A Nataraj
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Failure Criteria ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Failure Data ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Surgical Fixation ◽  
Independent Risk Factors ◽  
Anterior Posterior

Background: Optimal surgical management for flexion--distraction cervical spine injuries remains controversial with anterior, posterior, and circumferential fixation being accepted. Here, we examined risk factors for clinical and radiographic failure in patients with one segment cervical flexion-distraction injuries having undergone anterior surgical fixation. Methods: A retrospective review of 57 consecutive patients undergoing anterior fixation for cervical flexion-distraction injuries between 2008-2012 was performed. The primary outcome was the number of patients requiring additional surgical stabilization and/or radiographic failure. Data collected inlcuded age, gender, mechanism and level of injury, facet pattern injury, and vertebral endplate fracture. Results: Six patients failed clinically and/or radiographically (11%). Four patients (7%) required additional posterior fixation. Two patients identified met radiographic failure criteria, however had fused radiographically, were stable clinically, and no further treatment was pursued. Progressive kyphosis and translation correlated with need for revision (p<0.05 and p=0.02, respectively). No differences were identified for all other clinical and radiological factors assessed. Conclusions: This study supports the growing body of evidence for anterior fixation alone for flexion-distraction injuries. Findings suggest that measurements including segmental translation and kyphosis may predict radiographic failure and need for further surgical stabilization in some patients. Assessment for independent risk factors for anterior approach failure with a validated predictive scoring model should be considered.

scholarly journals Is postoperative bracing after pedicle screw fixation of spine fractures necessary? Study protocol of the ORNOT study: a randomised controlled multicentre trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e019596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arjen Johannes Smits ◽  
Jaap Deunk ◽  
Agnita Stadhouder ◽  
Mark Cornelis Altena ◽  
Diederik Hendrik Ruth Kempen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rating Scale ◽  
Numerical Rating Scale ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Postoperative Treatment ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Spine Fractures ◽  
Treatment Protocols ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionThe most common surgical treatment of traumatic spine fractures is through a posterior approach using pedicle screws and rods. Postoperative treatment protocols including the use of postoperative orthoses however differ between hospitals and surgeons. A three-point hyperextension orthosis is designed to support proper posture and unload the anterior column. Some motion remains when wearing an orthosis, and its main value in postoperative treatment is therefore believed to be pain relief and patient confidence. This could consequently shorten recovery time. On the other hand, an orthosis could also lead to muscle weakness and slow down recovery. Any orthosis-related complications might also be avoided. Additionally, recent studies on conservative fracture treatment show no difference in radiological outcomes with or without an orthosis. To date, no randomised studies have been performed on the use of postoperative orthoses.Methods and analysisPatients undergoing posterior fixation with pedicle screws for a traumatic thoracolumbar fracture (T7–L4) will be included in this randomised controlled multicentre non-inferiority trial. Forty-six patients will be randomised 1:1 to one of the two parallel groups; one group will wear a postoperative orthosis for 6 weeks followed by 6 weeks of weaning and one group will not wear an orthosis. The primary outcome is pain at 6 weeks reported on the Numerical Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes consist of pain on other moments, analgesic use, complications and length of hospital stay, quality of life (EuroQuol 5 Dimensions), back pain-related function (Oswestry Disability Index) and radiological outcomes with a follow-up of 1 year. Orthosis compliance is monitored weekly in the orthosis group.Ethics and disseminationThe institutional review board (METc VUmc) approved this study on 11 October 2016 under case number 2016.389. After completion of the trial, the results will be offered to an international scientific journal for peer-reviewed publication.Trial registration numberNCT03097081and NTR6285; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Ossification of the Yellow Ligament in the Lumbar Spine: First Reported Case

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Kengo Fujii ◽  
Tetsuya Abe ◽  
Toru Funayama ◽  
Hiroshi Noguchi ◽  
Keita Nakayama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Lateral Wall ◽  
Posterior Longitudinal Ligament ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Venous Plexus ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Initial Surgery

When ossification of the yellow ligament (OYL) occurs in the lumbar spine and extends to the lateral wall of the spinal canal, facetectomy is required to remove all of the ossified lesion and achieve decompression. Subsequent posterior fixation with interbody fusion will then be necessary to prevent postoperative progression of the ossification and intervertebral instability. The technique of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has recently been introduced. Using this procedure, surgeons can avoid excess blood loss from the extradural venous plexus and detachment of the ossified lesion and the ventral dura mater is avoidable. We present a 55-year-old male patient with OYL at L3/4 and anterior spondylolisthesis of L4 vertebra, with concomitant ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, who presented with a severe gait disturbance. He underwent a 2-stage operation without complications: LLIF for L3/4 and L4/5 was performed at the initial surgery, and posterior decompression fixation using pedicle screws from L3 to L5 was performed at the second surgery. His postoperative progress was favorable, and his interbody fusion was deemed successful. Here, we present the first reported case of LLIF for OYL of the lumbar spine. This procedure can be a good option for OYL of the lumbar spine.

Laminar screw fixation of the axis

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 327-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Sciubba ◽  
Joseph C. Noggle ◽  
Ananth K. Vellimana ◽  
James E. Conway ◽  
Ryan M. Kretzer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Spinous Process ◽  
Vascular Complications ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Rigid Fixation ◽  
Computed Tomography Scanning ◽  
Translaminar Screws ◽  
Instrumentation Failure

Object Laminar fixation of the axis with crossing bilateral screws has been shown to provide rigid fixation with a theoretically decreased risk of vertebral artery damage compared with C1–2 transarticular screw fixation and C-2 pedicle screw fixation. Some studies, however, have shown restricted rigidity of such screws compared with C-2 pedicle screws, and others note that anatomical variability exists within the posterior elements of the axis that may have an impact on successful placement. To elucidate the clinical impact of such screws, the authors report their experience in placing C-2 laminar screws in adult patients over a 2-year period, with emphasis on clinical outcome and technical placement. Methods Sixteen adult patients with cervical instability underwent posterior cervical and cervicothoracic fusion procedures at our institution with constructs involving C-2 laminar screws. Eleven patients were men and 5 were women, and they ranged in age from 28 to 84 years (mean 57 years). The reasons for fusion were degenerative disease (9 patients) and treatment of trauma (7 patients). In 14 patients (87.5%) standard translaminar screws were placed, and in 2 (12.5%) an ipsilateral trajectory was used. All patients underwent preoperative radiological evaluation of the cervical spine, including computed tomography scanning with multiplanar reconstruction to assess the posterior anatomy of C-2. Anatomical restrictions for placement of standard translaminar screws included a deeply furrowed spinous process and/or an underdeveloped midline posterior ring of the axis. In these cases, screws were placed into the corresponding lamina from the ipsilateral side, allowing bilateral screws to be oriented in a more parallel, as opposed to perpendicular, plane. All patients were followed for > 2 years to record rates of fusion, instrumentation failure, and other complications. Results Thirty-two screws were placed without neurological or vascular complications. The mean follow-up duration was 27.3 months. Complications included 2 revisions, one for pseudarthrosis and the other for screw pullout, and 3 postoperative infections. Conclusions Placement of laminar screws into the axis from the standard crossing approach or via an ipsilateral trajectory may allow a safe, effective, and durable means of including the axis in posterior cervical and cervicothoracic fusion procedures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document