Skip to main content

Advantages and Disadvantages of Traditional Atlantoaxial Fusion Techniques

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Atlantoaxial Fixation Techniques

Part of the book series: Translational Medicine Research ((TRAMERE))

  • 290 Accesses

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Mixter SJ, Osgood RB IV. Traumatic lesions of the atlas and axis. Ann Surg. 1910;51:193–207.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Gallie W. Fractures and dislocations of the cervical spine. Am J Surg. 1939;46:495–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brooks AL, Jenkins EB. Atlanto-axial arthrodesis by the wedge compression method. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60:279–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dickman CA, Sonntag VK, Papadopoulos SM, et al. The interspinous method of posterior atlantoaxial arthrodesis. J Neurosurg. 1991;74:190–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Griswold DM, Albright JA, Schiffman E, et al. Atlanto-axial fusion for instability. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60:285–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tucker HH. Technical report: method of fixation of subluxed or dislocated cervical spine below C1–C2. Can J Neurol Sci. 1975;2:381–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Magerl F, Seeman PS. Stable posterior fusion of the atlas by transarticular screw fixation. In: Kehr P, Weidner A, editors. Cervical spine I. New York: Springer; 1987.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Paramore CG, Dickman CA, Sonntag VK. The anatomical suitability of the C1–2 complex for transarticular screw fixation. J Neurosurg. 1996;85:221–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Goel A, Laheri V. Plate and screw fixation for atlanto-axial subluxation. Acta Neurochir. 1994;129:47–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Harms J, Melcher RP. Posterior C1–C2 fusion with polyaxial screw and rod fixation. Spine. 2001;26:2467–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wright NM. Posterior C2 fixation using bilateral, crossing C2 laminar screws: case series and technical note. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004;17:158–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dickman CA, Crawford NR, Paramore CG. Biomechanical characteristics of C1–2 cable fixations. J Neurosurg. 1996;85:316–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Naderi S, Crawford NR, Song GS, et al. Biomechanical comparison of C1–C2 posterior fixations. Cable, graft, and screw combinations. Spine. 1998;23:1946–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Melcher RP, Puttlitz CM, Kleinstueck FS, et al. Biomechanical testing of posterior atlantoaxial fixation techniques. Spine. 2002;27:2435–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Richter M, Schmidt R, Claes L, et al. Posterior atlantoaxial fixation: biomechanical in vitro comparison of six different techniques. Spine. 2002;27:1724–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gorek J, Acaroglu E, Berven S, et al. Constructs incorporating intralaminar C2 screws provide rigid stability for atlantoaxial fixation. Spine. 2005;30:1513–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sim HB, Lee JW, Park JT, et al. Biomechanical evaluations of various C1–C2 posterior fixation techniques. Spine. 2011;36:E401–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. and Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lu, X., Xu, T. (2018). Advantages and Disadvantages of Traditional Atlantoaxial Fusion Techniques. In: Ni, B., Guo, X., Guo, Q. (eds) Atlantoaxial Fixation Techniques. Translational Medicine Research. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7889-7_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics