Spine · 2006
Comparison of the anatomical risk for vertebral artery injury associated with the C2-pedicle screw and atlantoaxial transarticular screw.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yoshida Makoto, Neo Masashi, Fujibayashi Shunsuke, Nakamura Takashi
Аннотация
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 < or = 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 < or = 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.
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 < or = 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 < or = 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.