scholarly journals Modified Trajectory of C2 Laminar Screw - Double Bicortical Purchase of the Inferiorly Crossing Screw

2008 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Woo-Tack Rhee ◽  
Seung-Hoon You ◽  
Yeon-Gyu Jang ◽  
Sang-Youl Lee
Keyword(s):  
Laminar Screw ◽  
C2 Laminar Screw

scholarly journals Posterior spinal fusion using a unilateral C1 posterior arch screw and a C2 laminar screw for atlantoaxial fracture dislocation

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 2050313X1984927 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuichi Ono ◽  
Naohisa Miyakoshi ◽  
Michio Hongo ◽  
Yuji Kasukawa ◽  
Yoshinori Ishikawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Fracture Site ◽  
Fracture Dislocation ◽  
Posterior Arch ◽  
Lateral Mass ◽  
Laminar Screw ◽  
Upper Cervical ◽  
Lateral Mass Screws ◽  
The Right ◽  
C2 Laminar Screw

Introduction: C1 lateral mass screws and C2 pedicle screws are usually chosen to fix atlantoaxial (C1–C2) instability. However, there are a few situations in which these screws are difficult to use, such as in a case with a fracture line at the screw insertion point and bleeding from the fracture site. A new technique using a unilateral C1 posterior arch screw and a C2 laminar screw combined with a contralateral C1 lateral mass screws–C2 pedicle screws procedure for upper cervical fixation is reported. Case Report: A 24-year-old woman had an irreducible C1–C2 anterior dislocation with a type III odontoid fracture on the right side due to a traffic accident. The patient underwent open reduction and posterior C1–C2 fixation. On the left side, a C1 lateral mass screws and a C2 pedicle screws were placed. Because there was bleeding from the fracture site and a high-riding vertebral artery was seen on the right side, a C1 posterior arch screw and a C2 laminar screw were chosen. Eight months after the surgery, computed tomography scans showed healing of the odontoid fracture with anatomically correct alignment. Conclusions: Although there have been few comparable studies, fixation with unilateral C1 posterior arch screw–C2 laminar screw could be a beneficial choice for surgeries involving the upper cervical region in patients with fracture dislocation or arterial abnormalities.

scholarly journals Atlantoaxial Stabilization Using C1 and C2 Laminar Screw Fixation

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 314-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takashi Tsuji ◽  
Kazuhiro Chiba ◽  
Yosuke Horiuchi ◽  
Tadahisa Urabe ◽  
Shota Fujita ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Vertebral Artery ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Artery Occlusion ◽  
Cervical Spine Fracture ◽  
Atlantoaxial Joint ◽  
Laminar Screw ◽  
Combined Use ◽  
Atlantoaxial Stabilization ◽  
C2 Laminar Screw

<p>We describe the use of a C1 laminar screw in combination with a C2 laminar screw as a salvage technique to treat two patients, one with persistent first intersegmental artery and the other with vertebral artery occlusion after cervical spine fracture. The combined use of C1 and C2 laminar screws allows for good fixation of the atlantoaxial joint with a lower risk of vertebral artery injury; therefore, it can be an alternative surgical procedure for patients with congenital or traumatic anomalous vertebral artery.</p>

Biomechanical Effect of the C2 Laminar Decortication on the Stability of C2 Intralaminar Screw Construct and Biomechanical Comparison of C2 Intralaminar Screw and C2 Pars Screw

2011 ◽  
Vol 69 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. ons1-ons7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jae Taek Hong ◽  
Tomoyuki Takigawa ◽  
Ranjith Udayakunmar ◽  
Hun Kyu Shin ◽  
Peter Simon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Insertion Torque ◽  
Lateral Mass ◽  
Pullout Strength ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Biomechanical Stability ◽  
Laminar Screw ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
The Stability ◽  
C2 Laminar Screw

Abstract BACKGROUND: There have been no reports of biomechanical stability of C1-2 constructs after decortication of the C2 lamina. In addition, few studies have compared the stability of C2 laminar screw and pars screw constructs. OBJECTIVE: To compare the biomechanical stability of 3 different C1-2 construct conditions (C2 pars screw, C2 intralaminar screw, C2 intralaminar construct with C2 laminar decortication). METHODS: Fourteen fresh-frozen cadaveric cervical specimens (C1-3) were used. In 7 specimens, pure moments of 1.5 Nm were applied in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Each specimen was tested in the normal state, in the destabilized state (after odontoidectomy and resection of transverse atlantal ligament), and after application of constructs. After kinematic study, these 7 specimens underwent axial pullout strength testing of pars screw and 50% decorticated C2 intralaminar screws. In another 7 specimens, insertion torque and pullout strength were measured to compare the pars screw and intact C2 intralaminar screw. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the intact C2 intralaminar and 50% decorticated C2 intralaminar screw constructs in terms of range-of-motion limitations. The C2 pars screw construct was significantly superior to the C2 laminar screw construct in lateral bending (P &lt; .01) and axial rotation (P &lt; .01) and equivalent to the C2 laminar screw construct in flexion/extension (P = .42). There was no significant pullout strength difference between the 3 kinds of C2 screw. CONCLUSION: The C1 lateral mass-C2 pars screws construct was stronger than the C1 lateral mass-C2 intralaminar screw construct. Decortication of C2 laminar (up to 50%) did not affect the immediate stability of the C1-2 construct.

scholarly journals Freehand C2 Laminar Screw Placement: Technical Note and Operative Video

Cureus ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Clifton ◽  
Jose O Garcia ◽  
Aaron Damon ◽  
Kingsley Abode-Iyamah ◽  
Mark Pichelmann
Keyword(s):  
Technical Note ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Laminar Screw ◽  
C2 Laminar Screw

Letter to the Editor Regarding: “Development of a Novel 3D-Printed Phantom for Teaching Neurosurgical Trainees the Freehand Technique of C2 Laminar Screw Placement”

2020 ◽  
Vol 136 ◽  
pp. 437-438
Author(s):  
Dimitrios Chytas ◽  
George C. Babis ◽  
Efstathios Chronopoulos ◽  
Maria-Kyriaki Kaseta ◽  
Konstantinos Markatos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Screw Placement ◽  
Laminar Screw ◽  
Letter To The Editor ◽  
Freehand Technique ◽  
3D Printed ◽  
C2 Laminar Screw

Development of a Novel 3D Printed Phantom for Teaching Neurosurgical Trainees the Freehand Technique of C2 Laminar Screw Placement

2019 ◽  
Vol 129 ◽  
pp. e812-e820 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Clifton ◽  
Eric Nottmeier ◽  
Steven Edwards ◽  
Aaron Damon ◽  
Conrad Dove ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Screw Placement ◽  
Laminar Screw ◽  
Freehand Technique ◽  
3D Printed ◽  
C2 Laminar Screw

In vitro biomechanical comparison of transpedicular versus translaminar C-2 screw fixation in C2–3 instrumentation

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 414-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chandan Reddy ◽  
Aditya V. Ingalhalikar ◽  
Scott Channon ◽  
Tae-Hong Lim ◽  
James Torner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Upper Cervical Spine ◽  
Lateral Mass ◽  
C2 Pedicle Screw ◽  
Laminar Screw ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
C2 Laminar Screw

Object In instrumentation of the upper cervical spine, placement of pedicle screws into C-2 is generally safe, although there is the potential for injury to the vertebral arteries. Owing to this risk, translaminar screws into C-2 have been used. The aim of this study was to compare the stability of the in vitro cadaveric spine using C-2 laminar compared with C-2 pedicle screws in C2–3 instrumentation. Methods Eight fresh frozen human cadaveric cervical spines (C1–6) were potted at C1–2 and C5–6. Pure moments in increments of 0.3 Nm to a maximum of 1.5 Nm were applied in flexion, extension, right and left lateral bending, and right and left axial rotation. Each specimen was tested sequentially in three modes: 1) intact; 2) C2 pedicle screw–C3 lateral mass fixation; and 3) C2 laminar screw–C3 lateral mass fixation. The sequence of fixation testing was randomized. Motion was tracked with reflective markers attached to C-2 and C-3. Results Spinal levels with instrumentation showed significantly less motion than the intact spine in all directions and with all loads greater than 0.3 Nm (p < 0.05). Although there was no significant difference between C2 pedicle screw–C3 lateral mass fixation and C2 laminar screw–C3 lateral mass fixation, generally the former type of fixation was associated with less motion than the latter. Conclusions When pedicle screws in C-2 are contraindicated or inappropriate, laminar screws in C-2 offer a safe and acceptable option for posterior instrumentation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document