scholarly journals Detecting Facet Joint and Lateral Mass Injuries of the Subaxial Cervical Spine in Major Trauma Patients

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joost Johannes van Middendorp ◽  
Ian Cheung ◽  
Kristian Dalzell ◽  
Hamish Deverall ◽  
Brian J.C. Freeman ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Qiang Jian ◽  
Zhenlei Liu ◽  
Wanru Duan ◽  
Fengzeng Jian ◽  
Zan Chen

Purpose: To obtain the relevant morphometry of the lateral mass of the subaxial cervical spine (C3-C7) and to design a series of lateral mass prostheses for the posterior reconstruction of the stability of cervical spine. Methods: The computed tomography (CT) scans of healthy volunteers were obtained. RadiAnt DICOM Viewer software (Version 2020.1, Medixant, Poland) was used to measure the parameters of lateral mass, such as height, anteroposterior dimension (APD), mediolateral dimension (MLD) and facet joint angle. According to the parameters, a series of cervical lateral mass prostheses were designed. Cadaver experiment was conducted to demonstrate its feasibility. Results: 23 volunteers with an average age of 30.1 ± 7.1 years were enrolled in this study. The height of lateral mass is 14.1 mm averagely. Facet joint angle, APD and MLD of lateral mass averaged 40.1 degrees, 11.2 mm and 12.18 mm, respectively. With these key data, a lateral mass prosthesis consists of a bone grafting column and a posterior fixation plate was designed. The column has a 4.0 mm radius, 41 degrees surface angle and adjustable height of 13, 15, or 17 mm. In the cadaver experiment, the grafting column could function as a supporting structure between adjacent facets, and it would not violate exiting nerve root (NR) or vertebral artery (VA). Conclusion: This study provided detailed morphology of the lateral mass of subaxial cervical spine. A series of subaxial cervical lateral mass prostheses were designed awaiting further clinical application.


2021 ◽  
pp. 71-73
Author(s):  
Gograj Garhwal ◽  
Jitendra Singh Verma ◽  
Arvind Ranwa ◽  
Debarshi Jana

Introduction: The anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF)procedures, especially in cases requiring decompression of two or more levels. Routine use for the treatment of cervical spondylosis has caused plate design to change signicantly in recent years. Aim: To estimate the incidence of sub axial cervical trauma patients admitted in the Neurosurgery wards of the institute. To study the therapeutic outcome after management of the subaxial cervical trauma cases by Anterior cervical decompression (discectomy/corpectomy) with graft or cage and dynamic plate xation, posterior lateral mass screw-rod xation, bidirectional single stage combined approach techniques. To compare anterior dynamic plate graft xation with the posterior lateral mass screw rod xation in cases that could be managed by any single approach. Material and methods: This non randomized prospective observational study was conducted in the Department of Neurosurgery, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Hospital, Jaipurfrom April 2018 to December 2019. All diagnosed cases of subaxial cervical spine attending and being admitted to our institute during the study period and treated by anterior cervical decompression with dynamic plate xation, posterior lateral mass screw rod xation or combined technique were included in the study. Result:According to AO Spine Classication Type, 10(20.8%) patients had A2, 15(31.3%) patients had A3, 8(16.7%) patients had A4, 1(2.1%) patient had B2, 13(27.1%) patients had C and 1(2.1%) patient had C,F4. It was found that in Non Severe group, 6(31.6%) patients had A3type in AO Spine Classication Type and in severe group 9(31.0%) patients had A3type in AO Spine Classication Type. In Non Severe group, 4(21.1%) patients had C type in AO Spine Classication Type and in Severe group 9(31.0%) patients had C type in AO Spine Classication Type. The association between AO Spine Classication Type vs ASIAImpairment Scale Group was not statically signicant (p=0.6887). Conclusion:In ASIA IMPAIRMENT SCALE GROUP, 5 SLICS1 was higher [6(31.6%)] in Non Severe group and 8 SLICS1 was higher [9(31.0%)] in Severe group which was not statically signicant (p=0.4820).The mean EQ5D post op at 6month of Non Severe (ASIA IMPAIRMENTSCALE) patients was higher than the Severe group of patients which wasstatically signicant (p=0.0442).


2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Woodworth ◽  
William J. Molinari ◽  
Daniel Brandenstein ◽  
William Gruhn ◽  
Robert W. Molinari

Object The purpose of this study was to evaluate complications and radiographic and functional outcomes of isolated anterior stabilization surgery in which structural allograft and plates were used for posterior unstable subaxial cervical spine lateral mass, facet, and ligamentous injuries. Methods Between August 2003 and January 2008, 19 consecutive patients with unstable lateral mass, facet, and/or posterior ligamentous injuries of the subaxial cervical spine were treated by a single surgeon via an anterior approach. This was performed using structural allograft and plate fixation. Patients with any associated anterior vertebral fractures were excluded from the study. Autogenous bone grafts or bone graft substitutes were not used in any patient. The average age of the patients was 43 years (range 17–87 years) and the mean follow-up period was 20.4 months (range 6–48 months). Seventeen of the 19 patients participated in the study; the other 2 were lost to follow-up. Operative times, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), and perioperative complications were recorded for each patient. Radiographic outcomes included fusion scores and sagittal alignment measurements. Outcome scores with respect to neck pain, satisfaction with surgery, and function were recorded for each patient according to analog pain and satisfaction scales and the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Additionally, NDI and pain scores at final follow-up were compared with a group of healthy, age-matched controls. Results The average surgical time was 60 minutes (range 28–108 minutes), and the estimated blood loss averaged 48.9 ml per surgical procedure (range 20–150 ml). The LOS for the 13 patients who had no other associated injuries averaged 2.2 days (range 2–3 days). Fifteen of 17 patients achieved solid radiographic fusion, and no patient demonstrated instability. Only 1 patient had significant loss of the initial sagittal alignment correction at final follow-up. The average NDI score for the 17 patients was 6.5 (range 0–11), indicating mild disability and comparing favorably to a group of healthy age-matched controls. There was no statistical difference in pain scores for the trauma patients and control group at ultimate follow-up (1.5 vs 0.3, respectively). Satisfaction scores for the 17 trauma patients were high, averaging 94% (range 80–100%). Ten of the 11 patients with preoperative radiculopathy demonstrated complete resolution of this condition. Complications occurred in 1 patient with transient hoarseness and 1 with transient swallowing difficulty. There were no wound complications. Screw breakage occurred in 1 patient, and an additional patient required revision surgery for pseudarthrosis. Conclusions Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion performed using interbody structural allograft and plate fixation is highly effective in the treatment of unstable posterior cervical lateral mass, facet, and ligamentous injuries. This treatment option results in low intraoperative blood loss, short operating times, and a brief LOS. Radiographic outcomes with respect to segmental stability are excellent, and fusion rates with the use of structural allograft alone are high. Outcomes with respect to pain, function, and patient satisfaction are high, and complications are acceptably low.


2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 334-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory F. Jost ◽  
Erica F. Bisson ◽  
Meic H. Schmidt

Object Placement of transarticular facet screws is one option for stabilization of the subaxial cervical spine. Small clinical series and biomechanical data support their role as a substitute for other posterior stabilization techniques; however, the application of transarticular facet screws in the subaxial cervical spine has not been widely adopted, possibly because of surgeon unfamiliarity with the trajectory. In this study, the authors' objective is to define insertion points and angles of safe trajectory for transarticular facet screw placement in the subaxial cervical spine. Methods Thirty fine-cut CT scans of cervical spines were reconstructed in the multiplanar mode and evaluated for safe transarticular screw placement in the subaxial cervical spine (C2–3, C3–4, C4–5, C5–6, C6–7). As in placement of lateral mass screws, the vertebral artery and exiting nerve root were bypassed posterolaterally. The entry point was set 1 mm medial and 1 mm caudal to the center of the lateral mass. From this entry point, the sagittal angulation was set to traverse the facet joint plane approximately perpendicularly. For the axial angulation, the exit point was set posterolaterally to the transverse process. After ideal insertion angles and screw lengths were identified, the trajectory was simulated on CT scans of 20 different cervical spines to confirm safe screw placement. Results The mean optimal mediolateral insertion angles (± SD) were as follows: 23° ± 5° at C2–3; 24° ± 4° at C3–4; 25° ± 5° at C4–5; 25° ± 4° at C5–6; and 33° ± 6° at C6–7. The mean sagittal insertion angles measured to the sagittal projection of the facet joint space were as follows: 77° ± 10° at C2–3; 77° ± 10° at C3–4; 80° ± 11° at C4–5; 81°± 8° at C5–6; and 100° ± 11° at C6–7. The mean trajectory lengths were 15 ± 2 mm at C2–3; 14 ± 1 mm at C3–4; 15 ± 1 mm at C4–5; 16 ± 2 mm at C5–6; and 23 ± 4 mm at C6–7. Simulation of these insertion angles on 20 different cervical spine CTs yielded a safe trajectory in 85%–95% of spines for C2–3, C3–4, C4–5, C5–6, and C6–7. Conclusions The calculated optimal insertion angles and lengths for each level may guide the safe placement of subaxial cervical transfacet screws.


2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-28
Author(s):  
Nirmal D Patil ◽  
Sudhir K Srivastava ◽  
Sunil Bhosale ◽  
Shaligram Purohit

<sec><title>Study Design</title><p>This was a double-blinded cross-sectional study, which obtained no financial support for the research.</p></sec><sec><title>Purpose</title><p>To obtain a detailed morphometry of the lateral mass of the subaxial cervical spine.</p></sec><sec><title>Overview of Literature</title><p>The literature offers little data on the dimensions of the lateral mass of the subaxial cervical spine.</p></sec><sec><title>Methods</title><p>We assessed axial, sagittal, and coronal computed tomography (CT) cuts and anteroposterior and lateral X-rays of the lateral mass of the subaxial cervical spine of 104 patients (2,080 lateral masses) who presented to a tertiary care public hospital (King Edward Memorial Hospital, Mumbai) in a metropolitan city in India.</p></sec><sec><title>Results</title><p>For a majority of the parameters, males and females significantly differed at all levels (<italic>p</italic>&lt;0.05). Females consistently required higher (<italic>p</italic>&lt;0.05) minimum lateral angulation and lateral angulation. While the minimum lateral angulation followed the order of C5&lt;C4&lt;C6&lt;C3, the lateral angulation followed the order of C3&lt;C5&lt;C4&lt;C6. The lateral mass becomes longer and narrower from C3 to C7. In axial cuts, the dimensions increased from C3 to C6. The sagittal cut thickness and diagonal length increased and the sagittal cut height decreased from C3 to C7. The sagittal cut height was consistently lower in the Indian population at all levels, especially at the C7 level, as compared with the Western population, thereby questioning the acceptance of a 3.5-mm lateral mass screw. A good correlation exists between X-ray- and CT-based assessments of the lateral mass.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusions</title><p>Larger lateral angulation is required for Indian patients, especially females. The screw length can be effectively calculated by analyzing the lateral X-ray. A CT scan should be reserved for specific indications, and a caution must be exercised while inserting C7 lateral mass screws.</p></sec>


2018 ◽  
Vol 79 (01) ◽  
pp. e1-e8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdullah Arab ◽  
Fahad Alkherayf ◽  
Adam Sachs ◽  
Eugene Wai

Objective Cervical spine can be stabilized by different techniques. One of the common techniques used is the lateral mass screws (LMSs), which can be inserted either by freehand techniques or three-dimensional (3D) navigation system. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the difference between the 3D navigation system and the freehand technique for cervical spine LMS placement in terms of complications. Including intraoperative complications (vertebral artery injury [VAI], nerve root injury [NRI], spinal cord injury [SCI], lateral mass fracture [LMF]) and postoperative complications (screw malposition, screw complications). Methods Patients who had LMS fixation for their subaxial cervical spine from January 2014 to April 2015 at the Ottawa Hospital were included. A total of 284 subaxial cervical LMS were inserted in 40 consecutive patients. Surgical indications were cervical myelopathy and fractures. The screws' size was 3.5 mm in diameter and 8 to 16 mm in length. During the insertion of the subaxial cervical LMS, the 3D navigation system was used for 20 patients, and the freehand technique was used for the remaining 20 patients. We reviewed the charts, X-rays, computed tomography (CT) scans, and follow-up notes for all the patients pre- and postoperatively. Results Postoperative assessment showed that the incidence of VAI, SCI, and NRI were the same between the two groups. The CT scan analysis showed that the screw breakage, screw pull-outs, and screw loosening were the same between the two groups. LMF was less in the 3D navigation group but statistically insignificant. Screw malposition was less in the 3D navigation group compared with the freehand group and was statistically significant. The hospital stay, operative time, and blood loss were statistically insignificant between the two groups. Conclusions The use of CT-based navigation in LMS insertion decreased the rate of screw malpositions as compared with the freehand technique. Further investigations and trials will determine the effect of malpositions on the c-spine biomechanics. The use of navigation in LMS insertion did not show a significant difference in VAI, LMF, SCI, or NRI as compared with the freehand technique.


Spine ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. E335-E341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehmet Aydogan ◽  
Meric Enercan ◽  
Azmi Hamzaoglu ◽  
Ahmet Alanay

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (7) ◽  
pp. 259-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark F. Kurd ◽  
Paul W. Millhouse ◽  
Gregory D. Schroeder ◽  
Christopher K. Kepler ◽  
Alexander R. Vaccaro

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 751-760 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrei Fernandes Joaquim ◽  
Marcelo Luis Mudo ◽  
Lee A. Tan ◽  
K. Daniel Riew

Study Design: A narrative literature review. Objectives: To review the surgical techniques of posterior screw fixation in the subaxial cervical spine. Methods: A broad literature review on the most common screw fixation techniques including lateral mass, pedicle, intralaminar and transfacet screws was performed on PubMed. The techniques and surgical nuances are summarized. Results: The following techniques were described in detail and presented with illustrative figures, including (1) lateral mass screw insertion: by Roy-Camille, Louis, Magerl, Anderson, An, Riew techniques and also a modified technique for C7 lateral mass fixation; (2) pedicle screw fixation technique as described by Abumi and also a freehand technique description; (3) intralaminar screw fixation; and finally, (4) transfacet screw fixation, as described by Takayasu, DalCanto, Klekamp, and Miyanji. Conclusions: Many different techniques of subaxial screw fixation were described and are available. To know the nuances of each one allows surgeons to choose the best option for each patient, improving the success of the fixation and decrease complications.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 039-045 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elrahmany Mohamed ◽  
Zidan Ihab ◽  
Anwar Moaz ◽  
Nabawi Ayman ◽  
Abo-elw Haitham

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document