Chang Chih-Chang, Huang Wen-Cheng, Tu Tsung-Hsi, Chang Peng-Yuan, Fay Li-Yu, Wu Jau-Ching, Cheng Henrich
1Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei.
2School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei.
J Neurosurg Spine. 2018 Oct 19;30(1):52-59. doi: 10.3171/2018.6.SPINE171390. Print 2019 Jan 1.
OBJECTIVETo avoid jeopardizing an aberrant vertebral artery, there are three common options in placing a C2 screw, including pedicle, pars, and translaminar screws. Although biomechanical studies have demonstrated similar strength among these C2 screws in vitro, there are limited clinical data to address their differences in vivo. When different screws were placed in each side, few reports have compared the outcomes. The present study aimed to evaluate these multiple combinations of C2 screws.METHODSConsecutive adult patients who underwent posterior atlantoaxial (AA) fixation were retrospectively reviewed. Every patient uniformly had bilateral C1 lateral mass screws in conjunction with 2 C2 screws (1 C2 screw on each side chosen among the three options: pedicle, pars, or translaminar screws, based on individualized anatomical consideration). These patients were then grouped according to the different combinations of C2 screws for comparison of the outcomes.RESULTSA total of 63 patients were analyzed, with a mean follow-up of 34.3 months. There were five kinds of construct combinations of the C2 screws: 2 pedicle screws (the Ped-Ped group, n = 24), 2 translaminar screws (the La-La group, n = 7), 2 pars screws (the Pars-Pars group, n = 6), 1 pedicle and 1 pars screw (the Ped-Pars group, n = 7), and 1 pedicle and 1 translaminar screw (the Ped-La group, n = 19). The rate of successful fixation in each of the groups was 100%, 57.1%, 100%, 100%, and 78.9% (Ped-Ped, La-La, Par-Par, Ped-Par, and Ped-La, respectively). The patients who had no translaminar screw had a higher rate of success than those who had 1 or 2 translaminar screws (100% vs 73.1%, p = 0.0009). Among the 5 kinds of construct combinations, 2 C2 pedicle screws (the Ped-Ped group) had higher rates of success than 1 C2 pedicle and 1 C2 translaminar screw (the Ped-La group, p = 0.018). Overall, the rate of successful fixation was 87.3% (55/63). There were 7 patients (4 in the Ped-La group and 3 in the La-La group) who lost fixation/reduction, and they all had at least 1 translaminar screw.CONCLUSIONSIn AA fixation, C2 pedicle or pars screws or a combination of both provided very high success rates. Involvement of 1 or 2 C2 translaminar screws in the construct significantly lowered success rates. Therefore, a C2 pars screw is recommended over a translaminar screw.
为避免损伤异常椎动脉,在置入C2螺钉时有三种常见选择,包括椎弓根螺钉、峡部螺钉和经椎板螺钉。尽管生物力学研究已在体外证明这些C2螺钉的强度相似,但关于它们在体内差异的临床数据有限。当在每侧置入不同螺钉时,很少有报告比较其结果。本研究旨在评估C2螺钉的这些多种组合。
对连续接受后路寰枢椎(AA)固定的成年患者进行回顾性分析。每位患者均统一置入双侧C1侧块螺钉及2枚C2螺钉(根据个体化解剖学考虑,在三种选择:椎弓根螺钉、峡部螺钉或经椎板螺钉中,在每侧选择1枚C2螺钉)。然后根据C2螺钉的不同组合将这些患者分组,以比较结果。
共分析63例患者,平均随访34.3个月。C2螺钉有五种结构组合:2枚椎弓根螺钉(椎弓根-椎弓根组,n = 24)、2枚经椎板螺钉(经椎板-经椎板组,n = 7)、2枚峡部螺钉(峡部-峡部组,n = 6)、1枚椎弓根螺钉和1枚峡部螺钉(椎弓根-峡部组,n = 7)以及1枚椎弓根螺钉和1枚经椎板螺钉(椎弓根-经椎板组,n = 19)。各组的成功固定率分别为100%、57.1%、100%、100%和78.9%(分别为椎弓根-椎弓根组、经椎板-经椎板组、峡部-峡部组、椎弓根-峡部组和椎弓根-经椎板组)。未使用经椎板螺钉的患者成功率高于使用1枚或2枚经椎板螺钉的患者(100%对73.1%,p = 0.0009)。在5种结构组合中,2枚C2椎弓根螺钉(椎弓根-椎弓根组)的成功率高于1枚C2椎弓根螺钉和1枚C2经椎板螺钉(椎弓根-经椎板组,p = 0.018)。总体而言,成功固定率为87.3%(55/63)。有7例患者(椎弓根-经椎板组4例,经椎板-经椎板组3例)出现固定/复位丢失情况,且他们均至少有1枚经椎板螺钉。
在AA固定中,C2椎弓根螺钉或峡部螺钉或两者联合使用成功率非常高。结构中包含1枚或2枚C2经椎板螺钉会显著降低成功率。因此,推荐使用C2峡部螺钉而非经椎板螺钉。