Abstract
Purpose
To determine if C2 pedicle versus pars screw type predicts change in fusion status, C2 screw loosening, cervical alignment, and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) after C2–T2 posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PDCF).
Methods
All adult patients who underwent C2–T2 PCDF for myelopathy or myeloradiculopathy between 2013–2020 were retrospectively identified. Patients were dichotomized by C2 screw type into bilateral C2 pedicle and bilateral C2 pars screw groups. Preoperative and short- and long-term postoperative radiographic outcomes and PROMs were collected. Univariate and multivariate analysis compared patient factors, fusion status, radiographic measures, and PROMs across groups.
Results
A total of 159 patients met the inclusion/exclusion criteria (76 bilateral pedicle screws, 83 bilateral pars screws). Patients in the C2 pars relative to C2 pedicle screw group were on average more likely to have bone morphogenic protein (p = 0.001) and four-millimeter diameter rods utilized intraoperatively (p = 0.033). There were no significant differences in total construct and C2-3 fusion rate, C2 screw loosening, or complication and revision rates between C2 screw groups in univariate and regression analysis. Changes in C2 tilt, C2–3 segmental lordosis, C0–2 Cobb angle, proximal junctional kyphosis, atlanto-dens interval, C1 lamina-occiput distance, C2 sagittal vertical axis, C2–7 lordosis, and PROMs at all follow-up intervals did not vary significantly by C2 screw type.
Conclusion
There were no significant differences in fusion status, hardware complications, and radiographic and clinical outcomes based on C2 screw type following C2–T2 PCDF. Accordingly, intraoperative usage criteria can be flexible based on patient vertebral artery positioning and surgeon comfort level.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Code availability
Code available upon request.
References
Tracy JA, Bartleson JD (2010) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurologist 16:176–187. https://doi.org/10.1097/nrl.0b013e3181da3a29
Tetreault LA, Kopjar B, Vaccaro A et al (2013) A clinical prediction model to determine outcomes in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing surgical treatment. J Bone Jt Surg 95:1659–1666. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.l.01323
Rhee JM, Shamji MF, Erwin WM et al (2013) Nonoperative management of cervical myelopathy. Spine 38:S55–S67. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3182a7f41d
Rhee JM, Basra S (2008) Posterior surgery for cervical myelopathy: laminectomy, laminectomy with fusion, and laminoplasty. Asian Spine J 2:114–126. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2008.2.2.114
Hlubek RJ, Bohl MA, Cole TS et al (2018) Safety and accuracy of freehand versus navigated C2 pars or pedicle screw placement. Spine J 18:1374–1381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.12.003
Dmitriev AE, Lehman RA, Helgeson MD et al (2009) Acute and long-term stability of atlantoaxial fixation methods. Spine 34:365–370. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3181976aa9
Wajanavisit W, Lertudomphonwanit T, Fuangfa P et al (2016) Prevalence of high-riding vertebral artery and morphometry of C2 pedicles using a novel computed tomography reconstruction technique. Asian Spine J 10:1141–1148. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2016.10.6.1141
Elliott RE, Tanweer O, Boah A et al (2012) Comparison of safety and stability of C-2 pars and pedicle screws for atlantoaxial fusion: meta-analysis and review of the literature: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine 17:577–593. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.9.spine111021
Azimi P, Yazdanian T, Benzel EC et al (2020) Accuracy and safety of C2 pedicle or pars screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 15:272. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01798-0
Presciutti S, Boden S (2018) BMP and beyond: a 25-year historical review of translational spine research at emory university. Spine Surg Relat Res 2:1–10. https://doi.org/10.22603/ssrr.2017-0063
Maki S, Koda M, Iijima Y et al (2016) Medially-shifted rather than high-riding vertebral arteries preclude safe pedicle screw insertion. J Clin Neurosci 29:169–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2015.11.026
Su BW, Shimer AL, Chinthakunta S et al (2014) Comparison of fatigue strength of C2 pedicle screws, C2 pars screws, and a hybrid construct in C1–C2 fixation. Spine 39:E12–E19. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000063
Du JY, Aichmair A, Kueper J et al (2015) Biomechanical analysis of screw constructs for atlantoaxial fixation in cadavers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurosurg: Spine 22:151–161. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.10.spine13805
Sim HB, Lee JW, Park JT et al (2011) Biomechanical evaluations of various C1–C2 posterior fixation techniques. Spine 36:E401–E407. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e31820611ba
Shao M, Dai Y, Zhu W et al (2022) Bicortical short C2 pars screw fixation for high-riding vertebral artery provided sufficient biomechanical stability. Spine 47:369–375. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000004141
Funding
No funds, grants, or other support were received.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Levy, H.A., Pinter, Z.W., Pumford, A. et al. The effect of C2 screw type on perioperative outcomes and long-term stability after C2–T2 posterior cervical decompression and fusion. Eur Spine J (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08237-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08237-2