Spine Center and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 166 Gumiro, Bundang-ku, Sungnam 463-707, Republic of Korea.
Spine J. 2013 Jul;13(7):775-85. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.04.005. Epub 2013 May 14.
To our knowledge, no large series comparing the risk of vertebral artery injury by C1-C2 transarticular screw versus C2 pedicle screw have been published. In addition, no comparative studies have been performed on those with a high-riding vertebral artery and/or a narrow pedicle who are thought to be at higher risk than those with normal anatomy.
To compare the risk of vertebral artery injury by C1-C2 transarticular screw versus C2 pedicle screw in an overall patient population and subsets of patients with a high-riding vertebral artery and a narrow pedicle using computed tomography (CT) scan images and three-dimensional (3D) screw trajectory software.
Radiographic analysis using CT scans.
Computed tomography scans of 269 consecutive patients, for a total of 538 potential screw insertion sites for each type of screw.
Cortical perforation into the vertebral artery groove of C2 by a screw.
We simulated the placement of 4.0 mm transarticular and pedicle screws using 1-mm-sliced CT scans and 3D screw trajectory software. We then compared the frequency of C2 vertebral artery groove violation by the two different fixation methods. This was done in the overall patient population, in the subset of those with a high-riding vertebral artery (defined as an isthmus height ≤ 5 mm or internal height ≤ 2 mm on sagittal images) and with a narrow pedicle (defined as a pedicle width ≤ 4 mm on axial images).
There were 78 high-riding vertebral arteries (14.5%) and 51 narrow pedicles (9.5%). Most (82%) of the narrow pedicles had a concurrent high-riding vertebral artery, whereas only 54% of the high-riding vertebral arteries had a concurrent narrow pedicle. Overall, 9.5% of transarticular and 8.0% of pedicle screws violated the C2 vertebral artery groove without a significant difference between the two types of screws (p=.17). Among those with a high-riding vertebral artery, vertebral artery groove violation was significantly lower (p=.02) with pedicle (49%) than with transarticular (63%) screws. Among those with a narrow pedicle, vertebral artery groove violation was high in both groups (71% with transarticular and 76% with pedicle screws) but without a significant difference between the two groups (p=.55).
Overall, neither technique has more inherent anatomic risk of vertebral artery injury. However, in the presence of a high-riding vertebral artery, placement of a pedicle screw is significantly safer than the placement of a transarticular screw. Narrow pedicles, which might be anticipated to lead to higher risk for a pedicle screw than a transarticular screw, did not result in a significant difference because most patients (82%) with narrow pedicles had a concurrent high-riding vertebral artery that also increased the risk with a transarticular screw. Except in case of a high-riding vertebral artery, our results suggest that the surgeon can opt for either technique and expect similar anatomic risks of vertebral artery injury.
据我们所知,尚无大型系列研究比较经 C1-C2 关节突螺钉与 C2 椎弓根螺钉治疗椎动脉损伤的风险。此外,对于那些椎动脉高位和/或椎弓根狭窄的患者,认为其风险高于解剖结构正常的患者,尚未进行过比较研究。
使用 CT 扫描图像和三维(3D)螺钉轨迹软件,比较总体患者人群以及椎动脉高位和椎弓根狭窄亚组中经 C1-C2 关节突螺钉与 C2 椎弓根螺钉治疗椎动脉损伤的风险。
基于 CT 扫描的影像学分析。
269 例连续患者的 CT 扫描,共计 538 个潜在螺钉插入部位,每种螺钉类型各 269 例。
螺钉穿过 C2 椎动脉沟的皮质穿孔。
我们使用 1 毫米切片 CT 扫描和 3D 螺钉轨迹软件模拟 4.0 毫米关节突和椎弓根螺钉的放置。然后,我们比较了两种不同固定方法导致 C2 椎动脉沟损伤的频率。这项研究在总体患者人群中进行,还在椎动脉高位(定义为矢状位图像上峡部高度≤5mm 或内高≤2mm)和椎弓根狭窄(定义为轴位图像上椎弓根宽度≤4mm)的亚组中进行。
共有 78 例椎动脉高位(14.5%)和 51 例椎弓根狭窄(9.5%)。大多数(82%)狭窄的椎弓根都伴有椎动脉高位,而仅有 54%的椎动脉高位伴有椎弓根狭窄。总体而言,9.5%的关节突螺钉和 8.0%的椎弓根螺钉侵犯了 C2 椎动脉沟,但两种类型的螺钉之间没有显著差异(p=.17)。在椎动脉高位的患者中,椎弓根螺钉(49%)导致椎动脉沟损伤的发生率明显低于关节突螺钉(63%)(p=.02)。在椎弓根狭窄的患者中,两组的椎动脉沟损伤发生率均较高(关节突螺钉为 71%,椎弓根螺钉为 76%),但两组之间没有显著差异(p=.55)。
总体而言,两种技术都没有更内在的椎动脉损伤的解剖学风险。然而,在椎动脉高位的情况下,椎弓根螺钉的放置明显比关节突螺钉更安全。预计椎弓根螺钉比关节突螺钉的风险更高的狭窄椎弓根,并没有导致显著差异,因为大多数(82%)狭窄椎弓根的患者都伴有椎动脉高位,这也增加了关节突螺钉的风险。除了椎动脉高位的情况,我们的结果表明,外科医生可以选择这两种技术中的任何一种,预计都会有类似的椎动脉损伤的解剖学风险。