Advantages and Disadvantages of Traditional Atlantoaxial Fusion Techniques
For C1–C2 instability, the primary goal of treatment is to reconstruct the normal C1–C2 alignment and achieve solid bone fusion, avoiding deterioration of the neurological function. Conservative management is associated with significant segmental movement at C1–C2 but results in relatively low fusion rates when used alone. Therefore, surgical treatment with internal fixation is generally used to promote higher fusion rates. Anterior and posterior techniques for stabilization of the C1–C2 segments have been developed during the last several decades. C1–C2 fixations from the posterior approach are the mainstays of surgical treatment for atlantoaxial instability. This chapter describes the traditional posterior atlantoaxial fusion techniques and their advantages and disadvantages.
- 18.Wright NM, Lauryssen C. Vertebral artery injury in C1–2 transarticular screw fixation: results of a survey of the AANS/CNS section on disorders of the spine and peripheral nerves. American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons. J Neurosurg. 1998;88:634–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar