4.5 Article

Comparison of the anatomical risk for vertebral artery injury associated with the C2-pedicle screw and atlantoaxial transarticular screw

期刊

SPINE
卷 31, 期 15, 页码 E513-E517

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000224516.29747.52

关键词

atlantoaxial fixation; pedicle screw; transarticular screw; vertebral artery injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Design. We evaluated the trajectories of atlantoaxial transarticular and C2-pedicle screws in 3 dimensions using computerized tomography. Objective. To compare the anatomic risk for vertebral artery injury associated with C2-pedicle and atlantoaxial transarticular screws. Summary of Background Data. The atlantoaxial fixation technique using C1-lateral mass screws combined with C2-pedicle screws is considered a safer technique for preventing vertebral artery injury than atlantoaxial transarticular fixation. However, few reports have compared the anatomic risk of vertebral artery injury associated with C2-pedicle screws with that of transarticular screws. Methods. A total of 62 consecutive patients with cervical lesions were evaluated using 3-dimensional images reconstructed by a computer-assisted navigation system. We compared the maximum possible diameters of the atlantoaxial transarticular screw and C2-pedicle screw trajectories, and examined whether the maximum possible diameters were limited by the height or width of the bony structure in screw trajectories <= 4 mm in diameter. Results. Mean maximum possible diameters did not differ significantly between the trajectories of 124 atlantoaxial transarticular and 124 C2-pedicle screws. In screw trajectories <= 4 mm in diameter, 57.1% of transarticular screw trajectories were limited by the height of the bony structure, and all pedicle screw trajectories were limited by the width. Conclusions. C2-pedicle screw placement has nearly the same anatomic risk of vertebral artery injury as transarticular screw placement. Preoperative 3-dimensional evaluation may be useful for choosing the best surgical technique.

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