We would like to thank Dr. Neo for commenting on our article: “Surgical treatment for atlantooccipital osteoarthritis: a case report of two patients” [1].
Dr. Neo mentions that we failed to demonstrate that some of the pain in both patients came from the atlantooccipital (O-C1) joint. Fluoroscopy-guided intra-articular injections of the O-C1 and atlantoaxial (C1-2) joints separately may determine which joint is the main pain generator. This injection, however, is not commonly performed and requires significant technical skill. As he mentions, O-C1 fusion alone may have alleviated the patient’s pain, especially in Case 1. We, however, could not overlook osteoarthritis of the O-C1 joint, considering the possibility of residual pain and future risk of the adjacent segment degeneration of this already arthritic joint.
Few studies have been done examining the O-C1 joint. Dreyfuss et al. [2] reported that perceived pain/sensation was greater with the O-C1 joint injections, and the referral pain patterns were broader with the O-C1 joint injections. These results suggest that the O-C1 joints are capable of both more intense and diffuse pain than the C1-2 joints [2]. The O-C1 joint permits passive flexion and extension of about 10° and 25°, respectively, while the C1-2 joint permits flexion and extension of about 5° and 10°, respectively, with lateral rotation of about 70° on either side [3]. Pain provocation by neck motion can be a clinical diagnosis. If pain is triggered mainly by neck rotation we may choose only to do a C1-2 fusion. If pain is triggered by flexion and extension of the neck, we may need to include the O-C1 joint in the fusion. In Case 1 the patient had pain with extension of the neck.
Dr. Neo showed an image of a very narrow O-C1 joint of a patient who underwent C1-2 fusion and whose pain disappeared after the surgery. We believe this shows an O-C1 fusion, especially at the anterior cortex.
Ideally, if both patients had osteoarthritis at only the O-C1 joint, pain would be alleviated by an O-C1 fusion alone. We believe the O-C1 joint is often overlooked in evaluation of neck pain. The main purpose of our article is to call attention to O-C1 osteoarthritis. We hope that future studies would demonstrate the improvement of pain after O-C1 fusion in patients with only O-C1 osteoarthritis or demonstrate that a C1-2 fusion alone relieves pain in patients with both O-C1 and C1-2 osteoarthritis. Moreover, larger studies are required in the future to determine the relative contributions of O-C1 and C1-C2 joints to axial neck pain in patients with cervical osteoarthritis.
References
Yoshihara H, Kepler C, Hasegawa K, Rawlins BA (2010) Surgical treatment for atlantooccipital osteoarthritis: a case report of two patients. Eur Spine J (Epub ahead of print)
Dreyfuss P, Michaelsen M, Fletcher D (1994) Atlanto-occipital and lateral atlanto-axial joint pain patterns. Spine 19(10):1125–1131
Ogoke B (2000) The management of the atlanto-occipital and atlanto-axial joint pain. Pain Physician 3(3):289–293
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yoshihara, H. Answer to the Letter to the Editor of Masashi Neo concerning “Surgical treatment for atlantooccipital osteoarthritis: a case report of two patients” by H. Yoshihara et al. (2010) Eur Spine J [Epub ahead of print]. Eur Spine J 20, 1578 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1823-5
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1823-5