|
Abstract Study Design
Discussion The morphology and dimensions of the C2 pedicle found in this study are consistent with published cadaveric data4,5. Our data on the C2 pars is consistent with that described by Ebraheim2 and Xu7; however, this structure was defined as the C2 pedicle in both of these papers. Numerous other authors have also denoted this area as the C2 pedicle. The results of our study clearly show that the C2 pedicle and pars are distinct structures. More importantly, this study illustrates and reaffirms the innate variability of the vertebral artery at the C2 level. This variability increases the risk of vertebral artery injury when placing any type of dorsal screw into C2. This risk is also compounded by the thicker medial wall of the pars and pedicle, which gives a drill or screw a path of least resistance directly into the foramen. As well, the patients underlying disease process may also significantly affect the osseous anatomy of this area. Not only do anatomic variations occur from patient to patient but also from side to side within the same patient (Figure 8).
Anatomically, the vertebral artery was most vulnerable to injury at the isthmus of the pars or pedicle (where anatomic constraints were tight). Placement of a C2 pedicle or pars screw would have been unsafe in 21% of our patients. Due to the significant anatomical variability and risk in this area, the placement of a C2 pars screw should be individualized for each patient and side based on detailed preoperative planning rather than prescribing set guidelines1,6 for the placement of C2 pars screws. This study also points out a major advantage of the imageguided surgery planning station. Even if it is not used for intraoperative navigation, the system allows the surgeon to conveniently view a patients unique anatomy along any chosen pathway. This process facilitates surgical individualization in these technically demanding cases. This study also illustrates the utility of an imageguidance planning station as an anatomic research tool, obviating the need for cadaveric dissection. Based on our findings, the C2 pars screw has a much more accessible entry point that conforms with current instrumentation systems and techniques as compared to the C2 pedicle screw. The C2 pedicle has a superior and lateral entry point that is very close to the vertebral artery and requires additional exposure as well as percutaneous drill and screw placement to achieve the medial trajectory required. This point of entry does not conform with most occipital or subaxial fixation systems. Conclusions
References 1. An H, Gordin R, Renner K. Anatomic considerations for platescrew fixation of the cervical spine. Spine 1991; 16(10 Suppl):S548551 2. Ebraheim N, Rollins J, Xu R, Jackson W. Anatomic consideration of C2 pedicle screw placement. Spine 1996;21(6):691 695. 3. Foley K, Silveri C, Shah S, Garfin S, Vaccaro A. Atlantoaxial transarticular screw fixation: risk assessment and bone morphology using an image guidance system. Spine 1998. In press. 4. Karaikovic E, Daubs M, Madsen R, Gaines R. Morphologic characteristics of human cervical pedicles. Spine 1997;22(5):493500. 5. Panjabi M, Duranceau J, Goel V, Oxland T, Takata K. Cervical human vertebrae: quantitative threedimensional anatomy of the middle and lower regions. Spine 1991;16(8 Suppl):S861869. 6. RoyCamille RR, Sailant G, Mazel C. Internal fixation of the unstable cervical spine by posterior osteosynthesis with plate and screws. In Cervical Spine Research Society (ed). The Cervical Spine Ed 2. Philadelphia, JB Lippincott, 1989, pp.390404. 7. Xu R, Nadaud M, Ebraheim N, Yeasting R. Morphology of the second cervical vertebra and the posterior projection of the C2 pedicle axis. Spine 1995;20(3):259263. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||