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

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.

C1-2 Fixation Approach for Patients With Vascular Irregularities: A Case Report

In posterior spinal fusion (PSF), the vertebral artery is most vulnerable to injury at C1-2. C2 pedicle screws are often placed into the dorsomedial isthmus of C2. Alternative techniques include C2 laminar screws and wiring techniques. A 67-year-old male underwent PSF for persistent severe intractable neck pain and degeneration at C1-2. The patient had an enlarged left vertebral artery with midline migration into the C2 body. This pattern was within one standard deviation of normal; however, it rendered typical placement of a C2 pedicle screw unsafe. As a salvage, a C2 laminar screw was placed on the left to avoid risk of vertebral artery injury. The operation and recovery were without complication. C2 laminar screws can be viable alternatives to C2 pedicle screws in cases of midline vertebral artery migration or other vascular anomalies preventing normal safe placement of C2 pedicle screws.

Atlantoaxial Stabilization Using C1 and C2 Laminar Screw Fixation

<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

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.