Abstract:To the Editor: Having read the article by Dr Feng-Zeng Jian et al1 entitled “Direct posterior reduction and fixation for the treatment of basilar invagination with atlantoaxial dislocation,” we are attracted by the surgical technique and its excellent efficacy which they reported. However, some issues still confused us and we wish to bring them to the authors and readers of Neurosurgery. The authors described a method using C2 pedicle screws and occipital instruments, which was claimed to provide reductive force to correct the cervico-medullary angle (CMA) and decompress the craniovertebral junction.1 After the reduction they performed posterior fixation and fusion. The authors stated their procedure was “novel.” To our knowledge, however, this technique of posterior reduction and fixation used by Jian et al was first introduced by Abumi et al2 in 1999. Calling it “a novel posterior approach” without referring to the original author is unacceptable and unfair for the originality. It is widely accepted that the reducible atlantoaxial dislocation can be corrected by posterior reduction alone. It is noticed that 5 (17.2%) of Jian's 29 cases were reducible atlantoaxial dislocation (AAD), even though the author did not specify the cases. These cases should not be counted in calculation of reduction rate. To our experience, however, favorable outcome for the irreducible AAD (IAAD) cannot be achieved by posterior procedure without additional anterior AA release.3-5 In the setting of IAAD, the “single posterior longitudinal distraction”1 between C2 and the occiput will be resisted by the contracted tissues at the front (longus capitis, longus colli, anterior longitudinal ligament, alar, and apical ligaments). As a result, the effect of reduction is limited. In fact, the 2 cases whom Jian et al claimed to achieve anatomic reduction in their Figure 4 and 5 are not completely reduced. In their Figure 6C, where the authors also claimed to achieve anatomic reduction, it is clear that the shape of the odontoid, clivus and C2 spinous process is inconsistent with those in Jian's Figure 6A (Figure 1), hence they must be taken from different sections. The reductive effect should be evaluated in the same mid-sagittal computed tomographic (CT) scan. Moreover, if we draw a horizontal line via the center point of C1 arch, we can find that the subdental synchondrosis (pointed by the broken arrow) was not pulled down enough to be defined as complete reduction (Figure 1).Figure 1: Jian's Figure 6C and 6A had very different shape of the odontoid. A horizontal line via the center point of C1 arch was drawn. The subdental synchondrosis (pointed by the broken arrow) was not pulled down enough to be defined as complete reduction.Figure 2: During the reduction procedure, the odontoid has 2 motions: descending and tilting forward. Forward-bending of the locked plates and C2 pedicle screws can cause the odontoid to tilt forward and achieve the anatomic reduction.For IAAD, in order to achieve the reduction procedure, the odontoid should have two motions: descending and tilting forward (Figure 2). To our experience, cervical traction and transoral atlantoaxial release lead the migrated odontoid to descend. Forward-bending of the locked plates and C2 pedicle screws can cause the odontoid to tilt forward and achieve the anatomic reduction (Figure 2 and 3). After the anatomic reduction, the facet joint should be wedge-shaped and opened anteriorly (Figure 3I and 3J). However, Jian's posterior distraction only provided extension force for the odontoid and caused the facet joint to open posteriorly (Figure 4). Consequently, it leads to an aggravated kyphosis of the craniovertebral junction (shown by Jian's Figure 1) and the potential compression by the odontoid extension. Unfortunately, we believe the technique Jian et al used for IAAD and basilar invagination is reducing the AAD in a wrong direction.Figure 3: A, a 20-year-old male had basilar invagination, AAD and C1 occipitalization. B, reconstructive CT showed upward migration of the odontoid. C, preoperative MRI revealed the ventral compression and Chiari malformation. D, preoperative CT revealed the facet joint slide anteriorly and inferiorly. E, the contralateral facet joint. F, the patient underwent transoral release and posterior occiput-C2 fixation and fusion. Postoperative lateral X-ray showed an anatomic reduction. G, postoperative MRI obtained 5 days after surgery showed complete decompression. H, at the 4 months follow-up, CT showed anatomic reduction and solid fusion. I, after the anatomic reduction, the facet joint should be wedge-shaped and opened anteriorly. J, the contralateral facet joint was also opened anteriorly. K, MRI obtained 6 months after surgery showed the reduction of Chiari malformation.Figure 4: Jian's posterior distraction only provided extension force for the odontoid and caused the facet joint to open posteriorly. Consequently, it leads to an aggravated kyphosis of the craniovertebral junction.For the patients with AAD and basilar invagination, the ventral compression from the upward migrated odontoid is the primary pathology. The complete reduction of the odontoid is the most important factor to improve the CMA and restore the herniated cerebellar tonsils5 (Figure 3K). In doing so, the posterior decompression is not reasonable. The authors removed part of the posterior margin of the foramen magnum for all 29 cases.1 However, only 7 of them had Chiari malformations. The indications for the remaining 22 cases were unreasonable. In addition, the postoperative evaluation lost its anatomic landmark because of removal of the osseous margin6 and the evaluation of Chamberlain's line and McRae's line was trustless. Some information in Jian's report was unbelievable. Jian's Figure 4 was from case 14 (the only 38-year-old female in Jian's Table 2), and the postoperative CMA was actually 135 degrees (Figure 5). However, the authors reported it as 150 degrees (from Jian's Table 3). Jian's Figure 5 was from case 7 (the only 44-year-old female), and they reported the CMA was 142 degrees. But we can find the actual angle was only 132 degrees (Figure 6). The authors confirmed the fusion using a lateral X-ray in their Figure 5. It is not an objective confirmation. The fusion status should be judged on the reconstructive CT scan like their Figure 4D. Furthermore, readers can find the images in Jian's Figure 6 were not from the same patient because: 1) the odontoid in Jian's Figure 6A, 6C, and 6E had different shape. 2) the pedicle screw in Jian's Figure 6D have different trajectory with that in 6F. 3) the images in Jian's Figure 6E and 6F had uncommon small C2 spinous process and large C3 process, which differed with those in 6A and 6C. 4) subdental synchondrosis of C2 found in Jian's Figure 6C was near the level of C1 anterior arch, while that in 6E was far underneath the level of C1 anterior arch (both of 6C and 6E were postoperative and should have the same position of the subdental synchondrosis).FIGURE 5: For case 14 in Jian's report (the only 38-year-old female), the preoperative and postoperative CMA was all 135 degrees.FIGURE 6: For Jian's case 7 (the only 44-year-old female), the preoperative CMA was 127 degree, while the postoperative angle was 132 degrees.Again we thank the authors' report and extremely expect to participate in the discussion on this issue. Chao Wang Shenglin Wang Beijing, China

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.

Efficacy analysis of direct posterior reduction for the treatment of congenital basilar invagination complicated with atlantoaxial dislocation

[Clinical Effect of Posterior Atlanto Axial Vertebra Internal Fixation for Treatment of Instability of Occipitocervical].

Biomechanical Comparison of Modified TARP Technique versus Modified Goel Technique for the Treatment of Basilar Invagination: A Finite Element Analysis.

One stage solution and posterior fusion surgery through the high anterior cervical retropharyngeal approach for irreducible atlantoaxial dislocation

Bone Grafting of Atlantoaxial Joints and Occipitocervical or Atlantoaxial Fusion for the Reduction and Fixation of Basilar Invagination with Atlantoaxial Dislocation by A Posterior Approach: A Preliminary Study

Deflective Placement of Anterior Odontoid Cannulated Screw for Treatment of Odontoid Fracture Combined with Atlantoaxial Posterior Dislocation

Posterior Revision Surgery Using an Intraarticular Distraction Technique with Cage Grafting to Treat Atlantoaxial Dislocation Associated with Basilar Invagination.

The Value and Limitation of Cervical Traction in the Evaluation of the Reducibility of Atlantoaxial Dislocation and Basilar Invagination Using the Intraoperative O-Arm

Analysis of Failed Posterior Fossa Decompression and an Effective Revision Surgery in Patients with Basilar Invagination and Atlantoaxial Dislocation

Surgical outcomes of basilar invagination type B without atlantoaxial dislocation through simple posterior fossa decompression: a retrospective study of 18 cases

Preliminary Clinical Application of Anterior Anatomical Reduction Plate Fixation for Atlantoaxial Dislocation

Surgical efficacy analysis of atlantoaxial dislocation combined with cervical ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament

Management of pediatric patients with irreducible atlantoaxial dislocation: transoral anterior release, reduction, and fixation

Single-stage Anterior Release and Sequential Posterior Fusion for Irreducible Atlantoaxial Dislocation

Posterior Realignment of Irreducible Atlantoaxial Dislocation with Atlantoaxial Pedicle Screw-rod Fixation

Direct Posterior Reduction and Fixation.

The development of posterior reduction forceps for atlantoaxial dislocation and its preliminary application in irreducible atlantoaxial dislocation

Sagittal slope angle of lateral atlantoaxial articulation is associated with the severity of basilar invagination with atlantoaxial dislocation and predicts reduction degree after surgery

Evaluation of Craniometric Parameters and Efficacy of Posterior Surgical Intervention Types in Basilar Invagination Patients

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

Atlantoaxial reduction and fixation guided by the intraoperative CT