Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: To review published series describing C1-2 posterolateral instrumentation, comparing outcomes in patients who had and did not have C2 nerve sacrifice. METHODS: Online databases were searched for English-language articles between 1994 and April 2011 pertaining to posterior atlantoaxial instrumentation with C1 lateral mass and C2 screws. Twenty studies describing 732 patients with C2 nerve preservation and 6 studies describing 361 patients with C2 sacrifice met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: All but one small study without a control group were retrospective case series, making all evidence class III. Excluding C2 nerve dysfunction, no neurological deterioration was observed. Three instances of vertebral artery injury were secondary to soft tissue dissection and one was secondary to C1 screw insertion. There were seven instances of C1 screw malposition in the preservation group and none in the section group. Reported in roughly 20% of patients, mean estimated blood loss tended to be lower with C2 nerve sectioning (213 vs. 471 mL) and operative times were somewhat shorter (118 vs. 132 minutes). C2 nerve section resulted in greater symptomatic numbness (11.6% vs. 1.3%; P < 0.0001) but less neuropathic pain (0.3% vs. 4.7%; P = 0.0002) compared with C2 preservation. CONCLUSIONS: Sacrifice of the C2 nerve root to aid in the insertion of C1 lateral mass screws when performing posterior atlantoaxial instrumented fusions is a treatment option (class III). It may decrease blood loss and operative duration, potentially advantageous in elderly or frail patients. Numbness occurred in roughly 12% of patients, an outcome that may be unacceptable to certain patient populations, but neuropathic pain was nearly absent in reported studies with nerve section. C2 nerve preservation and retraction for C1 screw placement may have higher incidence of neuropathic pain (~5%). Rates of fusion are universally high independent of C2 nerve technique.

Object Some centers report a lower incidence of vertebral artery (VA) injury with C-2 pars screws compared with pedicle screws without sacrificing construct stability, despite biomechanical studies suggesting greater load failures with C-2 pedicle screws. The authors reviewed published series describing C-2 pars and pedicle screw implantation and atlantoaxial fusions and compared the incidence of VA injury, screw malposition, and successful atlantoaxial fusion with each screw type. Methods Online databases were searched for English-language articles between 1994 and April of 2011 describing the clinical and radiographic outcomes following posterior atlantoaxial fusion with C-1 lateral mass and either C-2 pars interarticularis or pedicle screws. Thirty-three studies describing 2975 C-2 pedicle screws and 11 studies describing 405 C-2 pars screws met inclusion criteria for the safety analysis. Seven studies describing 113 patients treated with C-2 pars screws and 20 studies describing 918 patients treated with C-2 pedicle screws met inclusion criteria for fusion analysis. Standard and formal meta-analysis techniques were used to compare outcomes. Results All studies provided Class III evidence. Ten instances of VA injury occurred with C-2 pedicle screws (0.3%) and no VA injury occurred with pars screws. The point estimate of VA injury for C-2 pedicle screws was 1.09% (95% CI 0.73%-1.63%) and was similar to that of C-2 pars screws (1.48%, 95% CI 0.62%-3.52%). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of clinically significant screw malpositions (1.14% [95% CI 0.77%-1.69%) vs 1.69% [95% CI 0.73%-3.84%]). Radiographically identified screw malposition occurred in a higher proportion of C-2 pedicle screws compared with C-2 pars screws (6.0% [95% CI 3.7%-9.6%] vs 4.0% [95% CI 2.0%-7.6%], p < 0.0001). Pseudarthrosis occurred in a greater proportion of patients treated with C-2 pars screws (5 [4.4%] of 113) compared with those treated with C-2 pedicle screws (2 [0.22%] of 900). Point estimates with 95% confidence intervals show a slightly higher rate of successful atlantoaxial fusion in the pedicle screw cohort (97.8% [CI 96.0%-98.8%] vs 93.5% [CI 86.6%-97.0%]; p < 0.0001). Q-testing ruled out heterogeneity between the study groups. Conclusions With a thorough knowledge of axis anatomy, surgeons can place both C-2 pars and C-2 pedicle screws accurately with a small risk of VA injury or clinically significant malposition. There may be subtle trade-off of safety for rigidity when using axial pedicle instead of pars screws, and the decision to use either screw type must be made only after careful review of the preoperative CT imaging and must take into account the surgeon's expertise and the particular demands of the clinical scenario in any given case.

OBJECTIVE: Iliac crest autograft remains the gold standard for spinal fusion operations. Given risk of donor site morbidity, many centers utilize allograft. We reviewed published series of C1-2 posterolateral instrumented fusions with allograft and autograft. METHODS: Online databases were searched for English-language articles reporting quantifiable outcome data published between 1994 and 2011 of posterior atlantoaxial instrumented arthrodesis with C1 and C2 screws. Thirteen studies describing 652 patients having autograft and seven studies describing 60 patients having allograft serve as the basis of this report. RESULTS: All studies were retrospective case series (Class III evidence). There were no differences in complications or mortality between the groups. There were trends toward shorter operative times and less blood loss using allograft. A higher proportion of patients in the allograft group underwent sacrifice of the C2 nerve root and decortication and packing of the C1-2 joints (P<0.0001). There was no significant difference in the proportion of surviving patients who achieved solid fusion in the autograft (642 of 644 [99.7%]) and allograft patients (59 of 59 [100%]; P = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: This review is limited by the retrospective data and inconsistent methodology of fusion determination used in most studies. Modern instrumentation and proper surgical techniques result in high rates of successful C1-2 arthrodesis. The use of allograft is a treatment option (Class III evidence) during posterior C1-2 instrumentation and fusion operations. Randomized, controlled trials using standardized radiographic assessments are needed across spinal arthrodesis studies to better determine the prevalence of radiographic fusion and establish technique superiority.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze qualitatively C2 nerve dysfunction after its transection in C1-2 posterolateral instrumented fusions. METHODS: From 2002-2010, 20 consecutive patients underwent posterolateral instrumented fusions using C1 lateral mass and C2 pars or pedicle screws, mainly for type 2 dens fractures. Screws were placed under lateral fluoroscopic guidance using standard techniques. Bilateral C2 nerve roots were coagulated and transected in all patients. Mean follow-up was 30.7 months and consisted of clinical and radiographic examinations, telephone interviews, and mailed visual analogue scale (VAS) questionnaires assessing C2 nerve dysfunction. RESULTS: One patient was lost to follow-up after the initial postoperative visit. Fusion was evident in all patients with 12 months of follow-up and two of three patients with <12 months of follow-up. There were no instances of unintended neurologic deficits, vascular injury, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, or hardware malfunction or malposition. By the 2-week or 6-week office visit, 4 of 20 patients complained of sensory disturbance, and 2 had paresthesias in the C2 distribution. After longer follow-up, one additional patient developed mild sensory symptoms. Quality of life was adversely affected in only one patient. No patient developed neuropathic pain at any time after C2 sectioning. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first series to describe C2 nerve function after posterior atlantoaxial instrumented fusion in adults of all ages. Sacrifice of the C2 nerve root increases fusion surface, allows for better preparation and decortication of the atlantoaxial joint, improves visualization for screw placement, and decreases blood loss and operative time without major clinical consequences.

INTRODUCTION:: Iatrogenic arterial injury is an uncommon but recognized complication of posterior spinal surgery. The spectrum of injuries includes vessel perforation leading to hemorrhage, delayed pseudoaneurysm formation, and threatened perforation by screw impingement on arterial vessels. Repair of these injuries traditionally involved open direct vessel repair or graft placement, which can be associated with significant morbidity. METHODS:: We identified five cases of iatrogenic arterial injury during or after posterior spinal surgery between July 2004 and August 2009 and describe the endovascular treatment of these five patients. RESULTS:: In two patients, intraoperative arterial bleeding was encountered during posterior spinal surgery. The posterior wounds were packed, temporarily closed, and the patients were placed supine. Angiography in both patients demonstrated arterial injury necessitating repair. Covered stent grafts were deployed through femoral cutdowns to exclude the areas of injury. In three additional patients, postoperative computed tomography imaging demonstrated pedicle screws abutting or penetrating the thoracic or abdominal aorta. In all three patients, angiography or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), or both, confirmed indention or perforation of the aorta by the screw. Aortic stent graft cuffs were deployed through femoral cutdowns to cover the area of aortic contact before hardware removal. All five patients did well and were discharged home in good condition. CONCLUSIONS:: Endovascular repair of arterial injuries occurring during posterior spine procedures is feasible and can offer a safe and less invasive alternative to open repair

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung is an aggressive tumor with unique histopathological features. It is not known to metastasize to the spine. PURPOSE: To report a metastatic case of this rare tumor to the cauda equina. STUDY DESIGN: Case report. METHODS: Retrospective case review and review of the literature. RESULTS: The authors report a rare case of a large cell neuroendocrine lung metastasis to the lumbar spine, causing right foot drop. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed a heterogeneously enhancing intradural extramedullary mass at L2/L3 level compressing the surrounding nerve roots. During surgery, the identified nerve roots were encased by the tumor, and the dissection was tedious. Postoperatively, the patient reported significantly improved back pain and he had severe foot weakness. The functional outcome was poor because the patient lost entirely his foot function; however, his back pain improved significantly after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first published study in which the authors described a metastasis of a rather uncommon lung cancer to the cauda equina. When a lesion of the cauda equina presents with a rapid progressive neurological deficit, leptomeningeal metastasis should be in the differential diagnosis.

Metameric lesions of the spine are rare. The authors present a case of patient with a complex metameric vascular lesion of the thoracic spine and describe a management strategy for this entity

BACKGROUND: C1-C2 fusion has significantly advanced from predominantly wiring/cable modalities to more biomechanically stable screw-rod techniques. Minimally invasive surgical techniques represents the most recent modification of atlantoaxial fixation. The indications, rationale, and surgical technique of this novel procedure are described. METHODS: Six patients requiring C1-C2 fusion (5 type II odontoid fractures and 1 os odontoideum) underwent minimally invasive C1-C2 fusion over a 2-year period. The cohort consisted of 5 men and 1 woman with a mean age of 51 years (age range, 39-64 y). All 6 patients underwent bilateral segmental atlantoaxial fixation using an expandable tubular retractor. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 32 months (age range, 24-46 mo) There were no intraoperative complications, and the mean estimated blood loss was 100 mL. Solid fusion was achieved in all 6 patients, without pathological motion on dynamic studies. Postoperative computed tomographic images showed no hardware malposition in the scanned patients (4 of the 6 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Placement of C1 and C2 instrumentation using minimally invasive techniques is technically feasible. Because the instrumentation and the means of obtaining arthrodesis do not differ substantively from the standard approach, we would not anticipate long-term results to be different from those of an open procedure, apart from the approach-related morbidity.