In Reply: Distraction, Compression, Extension, and Reduction Combined with Joint Remodeling and Extra-articular Distraction: Description of 2 New Modifications for Its Application in Basilar Invagination and Atlantoaxial Dislocation: Prospective Study in 79 Cases
Chao Wang,Ming Yan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyw116
2017-01-01
Abstract:ABBREVIATIONS DCER distraction, compression, extension, reduction AAD atlantoaxial dislocation BI basilar invagination ADI atlas-dens interval CCA clivus canal angle CMA cervical medullary angle SI sagittal inclination JRM joint remodeling EAD extra-articular distraction To the Editor: With great interest, we read the paper by Chandra et al1 in which the authors described a modification of their distraction, compression, extension, reduction (DCER) technique for treatment of moderate to severe atlantoaxial dislocation (AAD) and basilar invagination (BI) in a series of 79 patients, although it was not clear what percentage of them had truly irreducible AAD. Assuming all were irreducible, we would like to comment on the authors’ technique and describe a different approach, such that readers may benefit from a more balanced understanding of the various surgical procedures available for this condition. Particularly, we would like to challenge the seemingly increasing interest in what we believe to be an undue focus on the morphometry of the facets per se as the primary goal of surgery. Patients with AAD and BI may develop neurological symptoms as a consequence of a series of events beginning with increased demand on the cruciate ligaments leading to laxity, followed by instability manifesting as an anteroinferior sliding of the atlas (along with the cranium) over the axial vertebra, and with the end result of encroachment of the dens into the foramen magnum and impingement of the neural elements. Premature degeneration of the facet joints may also develop due to the gradually increasing instability between C1 and C2; however, it represents a secondary morphological change and should not replace the atlas-dens interval (ADI) as the primary target for surgical correction. Therefore, the clivus canal angle (CCA) and the cervical medullary angle (CMA), instead of the sagittal inclination (SI), may better serve as the primary indices for the extent of anterior medullary compression and neurological compromise in these patients.2 In their study, the authors did not report either CCA or CMA for any patients, but satisfactory postoperative CCA (≥150°) was not achieved in 4 out of the 5 case examples according to our measurement (Figures 1A-1D). Although the DCER technique, along with joint remodeling (JRM) and extra-articular distraction (EAD), was shown to be able to correct SI, a decrease in SI as such did not necessarily correlate with improved impingement of the neural elements; additional evidence is therefore required (eg, demonstration of the correction of CCA and normalization of CMA) to justify the use of the proposed technique. In our practice, symptomatic patients with BI and irreducible AAD not accounted for by an underlying pathology (eg, neoplasm or rheumatoid arthritis) may benefit from a decompressive procedure with the primary goal being the restoration of the normal ADI. The technique we use consisted of traction (1/6 of body weight at maximum) under general anesthesia, and, when necessary, extensive transoral soft tissue release (of the longus colli, longus capitis, facet joint capsule, and intraarticular adhesion), followed by a cantilever mechanism for posterior instrumentation.3 It carries a much lower comorbidity rate compared with excision of the dens, yet can provide very similar outcomes. A detailed description with a case example was provided in our previous letter,4 and it was recently validated by another group.5 The odontoid process was rotated ventrally and translated caudally to achieve neural decompression through a cantilever effect, and the bony components of the facets remained intact. The joint was distracted and the superior facet of C2 was ventrally rotated along with the odontoid process, thereby resulting in an anterior-opening, wedge-shaped articular space postoperatively (Figure 2). Our technique does not entail the intraarticular placement of a spacer, as it actually decreases the extent of joint space distraction and limits the ventral and caudal range of motion during the reduction of the odontoid process. In severe cases with almost or complete vertical facet join-ts, correction of the CCA is often accompanied by a signif-icant, 2-axis relative change in the orientation of the superior and inferior facets, and a posteriorly placed intra-articular spacer might hinder the relative motion of the facets or even slip anteriorly (as demonstrated in 1 patient from the original paper), hinting at its limited stability and questionable role as a fulcrum during reduction (Figures 3A-3G). Lastly, the authors used C2 translaminar screws after the superior cortex of the pedicles was violated by drilling during JRM. The suboptimal purchase of the translaminar screws necessitated extending the level of fixation to C3 or C4 in 1/6 of the cases, as the authors stated (and it seemed that even C5 was instrumented in the 29-year-old patient depicted in Figure 6 of the original paper), likely restricting postoperative range of motion of the cervical spine. To conclude, we compliment the authors’ efforts to develop a posterior-only technique for BI and AAD to avoid transoral excision of the dens in most cases. However, DCER (with JRM/EAD) is a relatively invasive procedure, with extended fusion sometimes being necessary. Although it may be able to correct the deformity of the facet joint in a single stage, further evaluation for its efficacy in neural decompression is required. As the authors stated at the end of the paper, “In cases with severe BI with AAD, it may be prudent to still perform a transoral procedure followed by posterior instrumented fixation.” Our technique of transoral soft-tissue release and posterior reduction and instrumentation represents a much less invasive procedure than odontoid excision yet a more definitive method for decompression of the neural elements than DCER (with JRM/EAD).FIGURE 1.: A, Patient from Figure 5 of the original paper with CCA measured. B, Patient from Figure 6 from the original paper with CCA measured. C, Patient from Figure 7 from the original paper with CCA measured. D, Patient from Figure 8 of the original paper with CCA measured.FIGURE 2.: Postoperative parasagittal CT reconstruction demonstrating an anterior-opening, wedge-shaped joint space.FIGURE 3.: A, Preoperative mid-sagittal CT reconstruction of a patient with atlantooccipitalization, BI, and severe AAD. B, Preoperative MRI demonstrating impingement of the cervicomedullary region. C, Intraoperative fluoroscopy demonstrating reduction of the odontoid process with transoral release and occipital-axial instrumentation. D, Postoperative mid-sagittal CT reconstruction showing correction of the CCA. E, Postoperative MRI demonstrating improvement of the CMA. F, Preoperative CT showing the original orientation and relationship of the facets. G, Postoperative CT demonstrating the change in the orientation and relationship of the superior and inferior facets after reduction of the odontoid process.Disclosure The authors have no personal, financial, or institutional interest in any of the drugs, materials, or devices described in this article.