Paravertebral foramen screw fixation for posterior cervical spine surgery: clinical case series

OBJECTIVE The goal of this study was to clarify the clinical utility of paravertebral foramen screws (PVFSs) and to determine intraoperative indicators for appropriate screw placement during posterior cervical fusion surgery to improve its safety. METHODS The authors included data from 46 patients (29 men and 17 women, mean age 61.7 years) who underwent posterior cervical spine surgery with 94 PVFSs. Of the 94 PVFSs, 77 were used in C6, 9 in C3, 5 in C4, and 3 in C5. According to the cervical lateral radiographic view, the authors divided the 94 PVFSs into 3 groups as follows: a longer group, in which the tip of PVFS was located anteriorly from the line of the posterior wall of the vertebral body (> +0 mm); an intermediate group, in which the screw tip was located up to 2 mm posteriorly to the posterior wall of the vertebral body (–2 to 0 mm); and a shorter group, in which the screw tip was located more than 2 mm posteriorly (< –2 mm). The accuracy of screw placement was assessed using CT imaging in the axial plane, and the proportion of screws penetrating a vertebral foramen or a transverse foramen was compared between the 3 groups. Screw loosening was defined as a lucent zone around the screw evaluated on cervical radiography at 1 year after surgery. Complications related to PVFS insertion and revision surgery related to PVFS were evaluated. RESULTS The authors classified 25 PVFSs into the longer group, 43 into the intermediate group, and 26 into the shorter group. The proportion of screws penetrating a vertebral foramen was largest in the shorter group, and the proportion penetrating a transverse foramen was largest in the longer group. Screw loosening was confirmed for 3 of 94 PVFSs. One PVFS inserted in C6 unilaterally within a long construct from C2 to C7 showed loosening, but it did not cause clinical symptoms. Revision surgery was required for 2 PVFSs inserted in C3 bilaterally as the lower instrumented vertebra in occiput–cervical fusion because they pulled out. There was no neurovascular complication related to PVFS insertion. CONCLUSIONS PVFSs are useful for posterior cervical fusion surgery as alternative anchor screws, and the line of the posterior wall of the cervical body on lateral fluoroscopic images is a potential intraoperative reference to indicate an appropriate trajectory for PVFSs.