Artikel
Three-dimensional modelling for posterior fixation in craniocervical instability
Suche in Medline nach
Autoren
-
T. Ohtonari
- Dept. of Spinal Surgery, Brain Attack Center Ota Memorial Hospital, Fukuyama, Hiroshima, Japan
-
S. Ota
- Dept. of Neurosurgery, Brain Attack Center Ota Memorial Hospital, Fukuyama, Hiroshima, Japan
-
N. Nishihara
- Dept. of Spinal Surgery, Brain Attack Center Ota Memorial Hospital, Fukuyama, Hiroshima, Japan
-
K. Suwa
- Dept. of Spinal Surgery, Brain Attack Center Ota Memorial Hospital, Fukuyama, Hiroshima, Japan
-
T. Ota
- Dept. of Spinal Surgery, Brain Attack Center Ota Memorial Hospital, Fukuyama, Hiroshima, Japan
-
T. Koyama
- Clinical Institute for Spinal Disorders, Otsu, Shiga, Japan
| Veröffentlicht: | 4. Juni 2012 |
|---|
Gliederung
Text
Objective: When deciding on the optimal surgical strategy for posterior fixation in craniocervical instability, it is essential to obtain precise knowledge of both the location of the vertebral arteries (VA) and the morphology of atlas and axis preoperatively. Herein, we report consecutive 11 operated cases with craniocervical instability in which three-dimensional (3D) models were used for preoperative planning.
Methods: A full-scale 3D model of the craniocervical junction area was created preoperatively for each individual patient. The plaster models were produced by way of a rapid prototyping technique of layered manufacturing, based on multiplaner reconstruction images from 3D computed tomographic (CT) angiography covering an area from the occiput to the middle cervical spine. All patients were placed in supine and reduction position on the CT table. The 3D models were created for a total of 11 patients (5 males and 6 females, age range 32–78 years) with craniocervical instability. The details regarding the diseases of these patients were as follows: rheumatoid arthritis, 4 cases; os odontoideum, 3 cases; odontoid process type II fracture, 1 case; and idiopathic subluxation, 3 cases. We planned each surgical strategy by actually applying implants to these 3D models before surgery. Only the fluoroscope was used as a support tool during the operation.
Results: In the first 2 cases, we installed 3 posterior atlantoaxial transarticular screws (TAS), as described by Magerl. In one of these 2 cases, fixation was performed between the C1 atlas claw and the C2 pedicle screw (PS) on one side. In all the other 9 cases, the applied implants were as follows: C0; 2 midline occipital plates, C1; 13 lateral mass screws (LMS) and 1 atlas claw, C2; 8 PS, 8 laminar screws (LS) and 3 axis claws, C3; 2 LMS, C3/4; 2 TAS, and C4/5; 2 TAS. In all 11 cases, stabilization was achieved in perfect accordance with the preoperative plans, and postoperative courses were good.
Conclusions: Navigation systems are certainly a useful support for the accurate installation of implants in the spine. However, it offers also both palpable technical help and solid reassurance to the surgeon to conduct a preoperative trial installation of implants on a 3D model of the craniocervical complex of the patient. This certainly applies to the posterior fixation of craniocervical instability, and possibly also beyond.
