Skip to main content
Log in

Morphometric subaxial lateral mass evaluation allows for preoperative optimal screw trajectory planning

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

Abstract

Purpose

Lateral mass (LM) fixation has become a standard in cervical spine instability treatment; however, maximal biomechanical stability combined with low morbidity remains a challenge. We evaluated our own patient cohort for bicortical screw placement and complication rates and investigated optimal screw trajectories with preoperative multiplanar computed tomography (CT) scans.

Methods

Fifty-five patients were retrospectively evaluated after LM fixation at various subaxial cervical spine levels with a modified Magerl technique. Postoperative CTs and clinical records were used to determine LM anatomy, screw lengths, bicortical screw percentages, and complication rates. Additionally, 3D CT subaxial cervical spine data sets from 45 additional subjects with clinical indications for cervical spine imaging were evaluated. Subject LM geometries (thickness) were evaluated at different sagittal angulations (strict sagittal, 20°, 30° and the optimal angulation) for the optimal screw trajectories at the C3–C7 segments.

Results

In total, 284 LM screws were placed, with a mean screw length of 16 mm and an 88 % bicortical bone purchase. Additionally, a 3.8 % malplacement rate was observed. LM thickness varied substantially between each subaxial cervical level and at each of the investigated angulations. The optimal angulation, at which LM thickness was maximal, increased continuously from C3 (14°) to C7 (38°). This increase permitted 8 % (C3) to 39 % (C7) gains in screw length compared with the strict sagittal plane assessments.

Conclusions

The optimal LM trajectory varied for each subaxial segment. The knowledge of LM geometry allows for safe, long and even bicortical screw placements using preoperative sagittal CT imaging evaluations.

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

Access this article

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Levine AM, Mazel C, Roy-Camille R (1992) Management of fracture separations of the articular mass using posterior cervical plating. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 17:447–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson PA, Henley MB, Grady et al (1991) Posterior cervical arthrodesis with AO reconstruction plates and bone graft. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16:72–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. An HS, Gordin R, Renner K (1991) Anatomic considerations for plate-screw fixation of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16:548–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wu J-C, Huang W-C, Chen Y-C et al (2008) Stabilization of subaxial cervical spines by lateral mass screw fixation with modified Magerl’s technique. Surg Neurol 70 Suppl 1:25–33 (discussion S1:33)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Grob D, Magerl F (1987) Dorsal spondylodesis of the cervical spine using a hooked plate. Orthopade 16:55–61

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ebraheim NA, Klausner T, Xu R, Yeasting RA (1998) Safe lateral-mass screw lengths in the Roy-Camille and Magerl techniques. An anatomic study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:1739–1742

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Yoon SH, Park HC, Park HS et al (2004) Radiological considerations of posterior cervical lateral mass fixation using plate and screw. Yonsei Med J 45:406–412

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stemper BD, Marawar SV, Yoganandan N et al (2008) Quantitative anatomy of subaxial cervical lateral mass: an analysis of safe screw lengths for Roy-Camille and magerl techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:893–897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barrey C, Mertens P, Jund J et al (2005) Quantitative anatomic evaluation of cervical lateral mass fixation with a comparison of the Roy-Camille and the Magerl screw techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:140–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nishinome M, Iizuka H, Iizuka Y, Takagishi K (2012) Anatomy of subaxial cervical foramens: the safety zone for lateral mass screwing. Eur Spine J 21:309–313

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Muffoletto AJ, Yang J, Vadhva M, Hadjipavlou AG (2003) Cervical stability with lateral mass plating: unicortical versus bicortical screw purchase. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:778–781

    Google Scholar 

  12. Seybold EA, Baker JA, Criscitiello AA et al (1999) Characteristics of unicortical and bicortical lateral mass screws in the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:2397–2403

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Heller JG, Estes BT, Zaouali M, Diop A (1996) Biomechanical study of screws in the lateral masses: variables affecting pull-out resistance. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78:1315–1321

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Errico T, Uhl R, Cooper P et al (1992) Pullout strength comparison of two methods of orienting screw insertion in the lateral masses of the bovine cervical spine. J Spinal Disord 5:459–463

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Montesano PX, Juach EC, Anderson PA et al (1991) Biomechanics of cervical spine internal fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16:10–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Deen HG, Birch BD, Wharen RE, Reimer R (2003) Lateral mass screw-rod fixation of the cervical spine: a prospective clinical series with 1-year follow-up. Spine J 3:489–495

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Graham AW, Swank ML, Kinard RE et al (1996) Posterior cervical arthrodesis and stabilization with a lateral mass plate. Clinical and computed tomographic evaluation of lateral mass screw placement and associated complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:323–328 (discussion 329)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Heller JG, Silcox DH, Sutterlin CE (1995) Complications of posterior cervical plating. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:2442–2448

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Inoue S, Moriyama T, Tachibana T et al (2012) Cervical lateral mass screw fixation without fluoroscopic control: analysis of risk factors for complications associated with screw insertion. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132:947–953

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pal D, Bayley E, Magaji SA, Boszczyk BM (2011) Freehand determination of the trajectory angle for cervical lateral mass screws: how accurate is it? Eur Spine J 20:972–976

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bayley E, Zia Z, Kerslake R et al (2010) Lamina-guided lateral mass screw placement in the sub-axial cervical spine. Eur Spine J 19:660–664

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nishinome M, Iizuka H, Iizuka Y, Takagishi K (2013) An analysis of the anatomic features of the cervical spine using computed tomography to select safer screw insertion techniques. Eur Spine J 22:2526–2531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dickerman RD, Reynolds AS, Bennett MT, Morgan BC (2007) Lateral mass screws: anatomy is the key, not image guidance! J Spinal Disord Tech 20:109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Hockel.

Additional information

K. Hockel and G. Maier contributed equally to the manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hockel, K., Maier, G., Rathgeb, J. et al. Morphometric subaxial lateral mass evaluation allows for preoperative optimal screw trajectory planning. Eur Spine J 23, 1705–1711 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3350-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3350-7

Keywords

Navigation