Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A clivus plate fixation for reconstruction of ventral defect of the craniovertebral junction: a novel fixation device for craniovertebral instability

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

A fabricated mesh cage and/or posterior occipitocervical instrumentation alone has been used for reconstruction of ventral defect of the upper cervical spine. However, using a trimmed mesh cage it was hard to achieve optimal clival screw purchase and it migrated or broke. A specific instrumentation at the craniovertebral junction (CVJ) should incorporate the morphology of the CVJ and biomechanical validation. The purpose of the present study was to develop an innovative clivus plate integrated with the clinical anatomy of CVJ and to evaluate the stability of the clivus plate fixation (CPF), stand-alone or combined with a posterior occipitocervical fixation (POCF).

Methods

Dimensions relevant to the clivus plate were measured on 40 adult dry bones and CT images of 30 patients. The CPF was composed of the clivus plate and a titanium mesh cage. The clivus plate was anchored to the clivus, atlas and C3 body and connected to the mesh cage. Six fresh cadaveric head–neck specimens (Oc–C4) were used in this study (46 ± 15 years old, 2 F/4 M). A continuous pure moment of  ±1.5 Nm was applied to the specimen in flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation. The status of intact, CPF alone, and CPF plus POCF was tested on each specimen. The CPF was implanted to the specimen following resection of the C1 anterior arch, C2 vertebral body, C2–C3 disc and atlantoaxial ligaments. The POCF was applied with screws anchoring at the occiput, C1, C3 and C4. The range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ) from the occiput to C3 were calculated.

Results

The clivus plate was developed based on measurements of 40 adult dry bones and CT images of 30 patients. The plates were successfully applied to all specimens. No obvious loosening or mismatch was observed. The mean clival length and widest and narrowest diameter of the clivus were 26, 33 and 19 mm, respectively. The clivus screw length was 8 mm for the caudal holes and 10 mm for the cephalad hole. The CPF reduced ROMs to 3.9° in flexion, 2.8° in extension, 4.2° in lateral bending and 6.8° in axial rotation. The combined CPF and POCF constrained motion within 0.6° in all directions and more than the CPF (P < 0.05). NZs after the CPF were 1.0° in flexion–extension, 2.1° in lateral bending and 2.2° in axial rotation, respectively. NZs after the CPF plus POCF were within 0.2° in all directions and less than the CPF (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

This study demonstrated screw purchase in the adult clivus and developed an innovative clivus plate fixation for reconstructing an extensive ventral defect in the upper cervical spine. The clivus plate fixation combined a posterior instrumentation ensuring reliable upper cervical stability.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lee SC, Chen JF, Lee ST (2004) Complications of fixation to the occiput-anatomical and design implications. Br J Neurosurg 18:590–597

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Suchomel P, Buchvald P, Barsa P et al (2007) Single-stage total C-2 intralesional spondylectomy for chordoma with three-column reconstruction. Technical note. J Neurosurg Spine 6:611–618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Goel A, Karapurkar AP (1994) Transoral plate and screw fixation of the craniovertebral region—a preliminary report. Br J Neurosurg 8:743–745

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rawlins JM, Batchelor AG, Liddington MI et al (2004) Tumor excision and reconstruction of the upper cervical spine: a multidisciplinary approach. Plast Reconstr Surg 114:1534–1538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Guppy KH, Chakrabarti I, Isaacs RS et al (2013) En bloc resection of a multilevel high-cervical chordoma involving C-2: new operative modalities: technical note. J Neurosurg Spine 19:232–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rhines LD, Fourney DR, Siadati A et al (2005) En bloc resection of multilevel cervical chordoma with C-2 involvement. Case report and description of operative technique. J Neurosurg Spine 2:199–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Goertzen DJ, Kawchuk GN (2009) A novel application of velocity-based force control for use in robotic biomechanical testing. J Biomech 42:366–369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Panjabi M, Dvorak J, Duranceau J et al (1988) Three-dimensional movements of the upper cervical spine. Spine 13:726–730

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Panjabi MM, Crisco JJ, Vasavada A et al (2001) Mechanical properties of the human cervical spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. Spine 26:2692–2700

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sar C, Eralp L (2001) Transoral resection and reconstruction for primary osteogenic sarcoma of the second cervical vertebra. Spine 26:1936–1941

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bailey CS, Fisher CG, Boyd MC et al (2006) En bloc marginal excision of a multilevel cervical chordoma. Case report. J Neurosurg Spine 4:409–414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wei F, Liu ZJ, Liu XG et al (2014) Complications of total spondylectomy of upper cervical spine primary tumor. Chin J Spine Spinal Cord 24:227–233

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ji W, Wang XY, Xu HZ et al (2012) The anatomic study of clival screw fixation for the craniovertebral region. Eur Spine J 21:1483–1491

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Luc PC, Carl EA, Guy G (2007) Biomechanical study of anterior spinal instrumentation configurations. Eur Spine J 16:1039–1045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Muffoletto AJ, Yang J, Vadhva M et al (2003) Cervical stability with lateral mass plating: unicortical versus bicortical screw purchase. Spine 28:778–781

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Singh H, Harrop J, Schiffmacher P et al (2010) Ventral surgical approaches to craniovertebral junction chordomas. Neurosurgery 66(3 Suppl):96–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Crockard HA (1995) Transoral surgery: some lessons learned. Br J Neurosurg 9:283–293

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Menezes AH (2008) Surgical approaches: postoperative care and complications “transoral-transpalatopharyngeal approach to the craniocervical junction”. Childs Nerv Syst 24:1187–1193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Menezes AH, VanGilder JC (1988) Transoral-transpharyngeal approach to the anterior craniocervical junction: ten-year experience with 72 patients. J Neurosurg 69:895–903

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Neo M, Asato R, Honda K et al (2007) Transmaxillary and transmandibular approach to a C1 chordoma. Spine 32:E236–E239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Park SH, Sung JK, Lee SH et al (2007) High anterior cervical approach to the upper cervical spine. Surg Neurol 68:519–524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cavallo LM, Cappabianca P, Messina A et al (2007) The extended endoscopic endonasal approach to the clivus and cranio-vertebral junction: anatomical study. Childs Nerv Syst 23:665–671

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wang Y, Xu W, Yang XH et al (2013) Recurrent upper cervical chordomas after radiotherapy surgical outcomes and surgical approach selection based on complications. Spine 38:E1141–E1148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chibbaro S, Cornelius JF, Froelich S et al (2014) Endoscopic endonasal approach in the management of skull base chordomas-clinical experience on a large series, technique, outcome, and pitfalls. Neurosurg Rev 37:217–224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (No. 81171765). The authors thank Waston Medical Appliance Co. Ltd, Changzhou, China for the support of the clivus plate development.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Spinal Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 North Guangzhou Avenue, Guangzhou, China

    Wei Ji, Jie Tong, Zhiping Huang, Minghui Zheng, Xiuhua Wu, Jianting Chen & Qingan Zhu

Authors
  1. Wei Ji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jie Tong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhiping Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Minghui Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiuhua Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jianting Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Qingan Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qingan Zhu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ji, W., Tong, J., Huang, Z. et al. A clivus plate fixation for reconstruction of ventral defect of the craniovertebral junction: a novel fixation device for craniovertebral instability. Eur Spine J 24, 1658–1665 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4025-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4025-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation