4.5 Article

Morphologic Analysis of Occipital Sinuses for Occipital Screw Fixation Using Digital Subtraction Angiography

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 91, 期 -, 页码 279-284

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.04.038

关键词

Anatomy; Injury; Occipital fixation; Occipital sinus; Venous sinus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Numerous methods to achieve occipitocervical stabilization have been described, including the use of occipital plate/screw constructs. Bicortical screws may increase the pullout strength, but intracranial injuries to venous sinuses have been reported. This study was performed to analyze the variations in occipital sinuses to prevent sinus injury caused by the bicortical screw. METHODS: Occipital sinuses of 1720 patients were examined using digital subtraction angiography. The data collected included patient age and sex, occipital sinus type, distance between occipital sinus and midline, depth from inion to occipital sinus, and distance between occipital sinus and midline occiput at different levels. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 57 years +/- 13. There were 807 (46.9%) men and 913 (53.1%) women. The most common occipital sinus type was single occipital sinus off-midline (type B2). The least common occipital sinus type was absent occipital sinuses (type A; 8.7% of patients). There was no significant difference between age and occipital sinus type (P = 0.310). Also, the difference between sexes was not significant in regard to occipital sinus type in general. However, in subgroup analysis of type B1 and B2, there was a significant difference between sexes (P < 0.01). The mean depth from bone to occipital sinus was 19.913 mm +/- 7.437. CONCLUSIONS: The occipital sinus shows several variations, and many morphologic differences can be seen. Preoperative detailed examination by magnetic resonance venography or vertebral angiography may be required for cases in which bicortical occipital screw fixation is necessary to avoid occipital sinus-related complications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据