Change of Anatomical Location of the Internal Carotid Artery Relative to the Atlas with Congenital Occipitalization and the Relevant Clinical Implications

Characteristics and evaluation of C1 posterior arch variation for transpedicular screw placement between patients with and without basilar invagination

BACKGROUND

C1 transpedicular screw (C1TS) placement provided satisfactory pullout resistance and 3D stability, but its application might be limited in patients with basilar invagination (BI) due to the high incidences of the atlas anomaly and vertebral artery (VA) variation. However, no study has explored the classifications of C1 posterior arch variations and investigated their indications and ideal insertion trajectories for C1TS in BI.

PURPOSE

To investigate the bony and surrounding arterial characteristics of the atlas, classify posterior arch variations, identify indications for C1TS, evaluate ideal insertion trajectories for C1TS in BI patients without atlas occipitalization (AO), and compare them with those without BI and AO as control.

METHODS

A total of 130 non-AO patients with and without BI (52 patients and 78 patients, respectively) from two medical centers were included at a 1:1.5 ratio. The posterior arch variations were assessed using a modified C1 morphological classification. Comparisons regarding the bony and surrounding arterial characteristics, morphological classification distributions, and ideal insertion trajectories between BI and control groups were performed. The subgroup analyses based on different morphological classifications were also conducted. In addition, the factors possibly affecting the insertion parameters were investigated using multiple linear regression analyses.

RESULTS

The BI group was associated with significantly smaller lateral mass height and width, sagittal length of posterior arch, pedicle height, vertical height of posterior arch, and distance between VA and VA groove (VAG) than control group. Four types of posterior arch variations with indications for different screw placement techniques were classified; Classifications I and II were suitable for C1TS. The BI cohort showed a significantly lower rate of Classification I than the control cohort. In the BI group, the subgroup of Classification I had significantly larger distance between the insertion point (IP) and inferior aspect of the posterior arch. In addition, it had the narrowest width along ideal screw trajectory, but a significantly more lateral ideal mediolateral angle than the subgroup of Classification II. Multiple linear regression indicated that the cephalad angle was significantly associated with the diagnosis of BI (B = 3.708, P < 0.001) and sagittal diameter of C1 (B = 3.417, P = 0.027); the ideal mediolateral angle was significantly associated with BMI (B = 0.264, P = 0.031), sagittal diameter of C1 (B =  - 4.559, P = 0.002), and pedicle height (B =  - 2.317, P < 0.001); the distance between the IP and inferior aspects of posterior arch was significantly associated with age (B =  - 0.002, P = 0.035), BMI (B =  - 0.007, P = 0.028), sagittal length of posterior arch (B =  - 0.187, P = 0.032), pedicle height (B =  - 0.392, P < 0.001), and middle and lower parts of posterior arch (B = 0.862, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of posterior arch variation in BI patients without AO was remarkably higher than that in control patients. The insertion parameters of posterior screws were different between the morphological classification types in BI and control groups. The distance between VA V3 segments and VAG in BI cohort was substantially smaller than that in control cohort. Preoperative individual 3D computed tomography (CT), CT angiography and intraoperative navigation are recommended for BI patients receiving posterior screw placement.

Strategies to avoid internal carotid artery injury in “sandwich” atlantoaxial dislocation patients during surgery

PURPOSE

To elucidate the anatomic relationship between the internal carotid artery (ICA) and the bony structures of the craniovertebral junction among "sandwich" atlantoaxial dislocation (AAD) patients, and to analyze the risks of injury during surgical procedures.

METHODS

The distance from the medial wall of ICA to the midsagittal plane (D1), the shortest distance between the ICA wall and the anterior cortex of the lateral mass of atlas (LMA) (D2) on the most caudal and cranial levels of LMA and the angle (A) between the sagittal plane passing through the screw entry point of C1 lateral mass(C1LM) screw and the medial tangent line of the vessel passing through the entry point were measured. Besides, the location of ICA in front of the atlantoaxial vertebra was divided into 4 categories (Z1-Z4).

RESULTS

There was a statistically difference between the male and female patients regarding D1, and the difference between D2 at level a and level b as well as angle A between the left and right sides were statistically different (p < 0.05). Ninety-two ICAs (57.5%) were anteriorly located in Z3, 50 (31.3%) were located in Z4, 17 were located in Z2, and only one ICA was located in Z1 in all 80 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In "sandwich" AAD patients, particular attention should be paid to excessively medialized ICA to avoid ICA injury during trans-oral procedures, and the risk of injuring the ICA with more cranially and medially angulated C1LM screw placement was relatively less during posterior fixation procedures. A novel classification of ICA location was used to describe the relationship between ICA and LMA.

A novel surgical protocol for safe and accurate placement of C1 lateral mass screws in patients with atlas assimilation, basilar invagination and atlantoaxial instability: technical details, accuracy assessment and perioperative complications

PURPOSE

To introduce a novel surgical protocol for safe and accurate placement of C1 lateral mass screws in patients with atlas assimilation, basilar invagination and atlantoaxial instability, and to categorize the screw accuracy and perioperative complications regarding this technique in a large case series.

METHODS

Between January 2015 and January 2020, patients who had atlas assimilation, basilar invagination and atlantoaxial instability, and underwent atlantoaxial fixation using C1 lateral mass screws were reviewed. C1 lateral mass screws were placed with a novel surgical protocol following a series key steps, including posterior para-odontoid ligament release, panoramic exposure of the invaginated lateral mass, and diligent protection of the abnormal VA. Screw accuracy and related complications were specifically evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 434 C1 lateral mass screws were placed. Fifteen screws (3.5%) were classified as unacceptable, 54 screws (12.4%) were classified as acceptable, and 365 screws (84.1%) were classified as ideal. Overall, 96.5% of screws were deemed safe. There were no cases of vascular injury or permanent neurological defects. One patient with an unacceptable screw presented with hypoglossal nerve paralysis and recovered after an immediate revision surgery. Thirty-seven patients complained about occipital neuralgia and were successfully managed with medication.

CONCLUSION

Placement of C1 lateral mass screws in patients with atlas assimilation, basilar invagination and atlantoaxial instability following this surgical protocol is safe and accurate. Thorough para-odontoid ligamental release, wide exposure of the invaginated lateral mass, and diligent protection of the vertebral artery are critical to maximize the chances of successful screw placement.

The internal carotid artery and the atlas: anatomical relationship and implications for C1 lateral mass fixation

PURPOSE

The internal carotid artery (ICA) is potentially at risk during posterior fixation of C1. In this study, we performed a CT-based anatomical analysis of the relationship between the internal carotid artery and the lateral mass of the atlas.

METHODS

We analysed 30 CT angiography of the cervical spine, and we measured on both sides the distance of the carotid artery from the midline, distance of the ICA from the anterior cortex of C1 and from the ideal C1 screw entry point. We measured the angle between the sagittal plane passing through the entry point and the tangent line of the vessel. Separated statistical analysis between left and right sides, between male and female patients, and differentiation by age were also performed.

RESULTS

Sixty ICAs were studied. The mean distance of the ICA from the midline was 23.3 ± 4.3 mm, with a minimum of 15 mm. The distance between the ICA and the anterior cortical layer of C1 was 4.8 ± 2.7 mm, with a minimum of 1.1 mm. The distance between the screw entry point and the arterial wall was 22.6 ± 2.8 mm, with a minimum of 17.5 mm. The mean angle was 10.4°, with a minimum of 11°.

CONCLUSIONS

Although rare, intraoperative lesion of the ICA is reported and the spine surgeon must be aware of this risk. Careful preoperative planning is mandatory and the position of the ICA in relation to C1 must be assessed. The anatomical parameters presented in this paper can be useful to reduce the risk of ICA injury.