Browsing by Subject "Axis, Cervical Vertebra"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    C-2 neurectomy during atlantoaxial instrumented fusion in the elderly: patient satisfaction and surgical outcome.
    (Journal of neurosurgery. Spine, 2011-07) Hamilton, D Kojo; Smith, Justin S; Sansur, Charles A; Dumont, Aaron S; Shaffrey, Christopher I

    Objective

    The originally described technique of atlantoaxial stabilization using C-1 lateral mass and C-2 pars screws includes a C-2 neurectomy to provide adequate hemostasis and visualization for screw placement, enable adequate joint decortication and arthrodesis, and prevent new-onset postoperative C-2 neuralgia. However, inclusion of a C-2 neurectomy for this procedure remains controversial, likely due in part to a lack of studies that have specifically addressed whether it affects patient outcome. The authors' objective was to assess the surgical and clinical impact of routine C-2 neurectomy performed with C1-2 segmental instrumented arthrodesis in a consecutive series of elderly patients with C1-2 instability.

    Methods

    Forty-four consecutive patients (mean age 71 years) underwent C1-2 instrumented fusion, including C-1 lateral mass screw insertion. Bilateral C-2 neurectomies were performed. Standardized clinical assessments were performed both pre- and postoperatively. Numbness or discomfort in a C-2 distribution was documented at follow-up. Fusion was assessed using the Lenke fusion grade.

    Results

    Among all 44 patients, mean blood loss was 200 ml (range 100-350 ml) and mean operative time was 129 minutes (range 87-240 minutes). There were no intraoperative complications, and no patients reported new postoperative onset or worsening of C-2 neuralgia postoperatively. Outcomes for the 30 patients with a minimum 13-month follow-up (range 13-72 months) were assessed. At a mean follow-up of 36 months, Nurick grade and pain numeric rating scale scores improved from 3.7 to 1.0 (p < 0.001) and 9.4 to 0.6 (p < 0.001), respectively. The mean postoperative Neck Disability Index score was 7.3%. The fusion rate was 97%, and the patient satisfaction rate was 93%. All 24 patients with preoperative occipital neuralgia reported relief. Seventeen patients noticed C-2 distribution numbness only during examination in the clinic, and 2 patients reported C-2 numbness, but it did not affect their daily function.

    Conclusions

    In this series of C1-2 instrumented arthrodesis in elderly patients, excellent fusion rates were achieved, and patient satisfaction was not negatively affected by C-2 neurectomy. In the authors' experience, C-2 neurectomy enhanced surgical exposure of the C1-2 joint, thereby facilitating hemostasis, placement of instrumentation, and decortication of the joint space for arthrodesis. Importantly, with C-2 neurectomy in the present series, no cases of new onset postoperative C-2 neuralgia occurred, in contrast to a growing number of reports in the literature documenting new-onset C-2 neuralgia without C-2 neurectomy. On the contrary, 80% of patients in the present series had preoperative occipital neuralgia and in all of these patients this neuralgia was relieved following C1-2 instrumented arthrodesis with C-2 neurectomy.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Reliability and reproducibility of subaxial cervical injury description system: a standardized nomenclature schema.
    (Spine, 2011-08) Bono, Christopher M; Schoenfeld, Andrew; Gupta, Giri; Harrop, James S; Anderson, Paul; Patel, Alpesh A; Dimar, John; Aarabi, Bizhan; Dailey, Andrew; Vaccaro, Alexander R; Gahr, Ralf; Shaffrey, Christopher; Anderson, David G; Rampersaud, Raj

    Study design

    Radiographic measurement study.

    Objective

    To develop a standardized cervical injury nomenclature system to facilitate description, communication, and classification among health care providers. The reliability and reproducibility of this system was then examined.

    Summary of background data

    Description of subaxial cervical injuries is critical for treatment decision making and comparing scientific reports of outcomes. Despite a number of available classification systems, surgeons, and researchers continue to use descriptive nomenclature, such as "burst" and "teardrop" fractures, to describe injuries. However, there is considerable inconsistency with use of such terms in the literature.

    Methods

    Eleven distinct injury types and associated definitions were established for the subaxial cervical spine and subsequently refined by members of the Spine Trauma Study Group. A series of 18 cases of patients with a broad spectrum of subaxial cervical spine injuries was prepared and distributed to surgeon raters. Each rater was provided with the full nomenclature document and asked to select primary and secondary injury types for each case. After receipt of the raters' first round of classifications, the cases were resorted and returned to the raters for a second round of review. Interrater and intrarater reliabilities were calculated as percent agreement and Cohen kappa (κ) values. Intrarater reliability was assessed by comparing a given rater's diagnosis from the first and second rounds.

    Results

    Nineteen surgeons completed the first and second rounds of the study. Overall, the system demonstrated 56.4% interrater agreement and 72.8% intrarater agreement. Overall, interrater κ values demonstrated moderate agreement while intrarater κ values showed substantial agreement. Analyzed by injury types, only four (burst fractures, lateral mass fractures, flexion teardrop fractures, and anterior distraction injuries) demonstrated greater than 50% interrater agreement.

    Conclusion

    This study demonstrated that, even in ideal circumstances, there is only moderate agreement among raters regarding cervical injury nomenclature. It is hoped that more familiarity with the proposed system will increase reproducibility in the future. Additional research is required to establish the clinical utility of this novel nomenclature schema.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Treatment of Axis Body Fractures: A Systematic Review.
    (Clinical spine surgery, 2017-12) Kepler, Christopher K; Vaccaro, Alexander R; Fleischman, Andrew N; Traynelis, Vincent C; Patel, Alpesh A; Dekutoski, Mark B; Harrop, James; Wood, Kirkham B; Schroeder, Gregory D; Bransford, Richard; Aarabi, Bizhan; Okonkwo, David O; Arnold, Paul M; Fehlings, Michael G; Nassr, Ahmad; Shaffrey, Christopher; Yoon, S Tim; Kwon, Brian

    Study design

    Evidence-based systematic review.

    Objectives

    To define the optimal treatment of fractures involving the C2 body, including those with concomitant injuries, based upon a systematic review of the literature.

    Summary of background data

    Axis body fractures have customarily been treated nonoperatively, but there are some injuries that may require operative intervention. High-quality literature is sparse and there are few class I or class II studies to guide treatment decisions.

    Materials and methods

    A literature search was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus (EMBASE, MEDLINE, COMPENDEX). The quality of literature was rated according to a grading tool developed by the Center for Evidence-based Medicine. Operative and nonoperative treatment of axis body fractures were compared using fracture bony union as the primary outcome measure. As risk factors for nonunion were not consistently reported, cases were analyzed individually.

    Results

    The literature search identified 62 studies, of which 10 were case reports which were excluded from the analysis. A total of 920 patients from 52 studies were included. The overall bony union rate for all axis body fractures was 91%. Although the majority of fractures were treated nonoperatively, there has been an increasing trend toward operative intervention for Benzel type III (transverse) axis body fractures. Nearly 76% of axis body fractures were classified as type III fractures, of which 88% united successfully. Nearly all Benzel type I and type II axis body fractures were successfully treated nonoperatively. The risk factors for nonunion included: a higher degree of subluxation, fracture displacement, comminution, concurrent injuries, delay in treatment, and older age.

    Conclusions

    High rates for fracture union are reported in the literature for axis body fractures with nonoperative treatment. High-quality prospective studies are required to develop consensus as to which C2 body fractures require operative fixation.