Direct Posterior Reduction and Fixation.
Chao Wang,Shenglin Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0b013e3181f3586a
2011-01-01
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