Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Study Design

Case series of seven patients.

Objective

C2 stabilization can be challenging due to the complex anatomy of the upper cervical vertebrae. We describe seven cases of C1–C2 fusion using intraoperative navigation to aid in the screw placement at the atlantoaxial (C1–C2) junction.

Methods

Between 2011 and 2014, seven patients underwent posterior atlantoaxial fusion using intraoperative frameless stereotactic O-arm Surgical Imaging and StealthStation Surgical Navigation System (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States). Outcome measures included screw accuracy, neurologic status, radiation dosing, and surgical complications.

Results

Four patients had fusion at C1–C2 only, and in the remaining three, fixation extended down to C3 due to anatomical considerations for screw placement recognized on intraoperative imaging. Out of 30 screws placed, all demonstrated minimal divergence from desired placement in either C1 lateral mass, C2 pedicle, or C3 lateral mass. No neurovascular compromise was seen following the use of intraoperative guided screw placement. The average radiation dosing due to intraoperative imaging was 39.0 mGy. All patients were followed for a minimum of 12 months. All patients went on to solid fusion.

Conclusion

C1–C2 fusion using computed tomography-guided navigation is a safe and effective way to treat atlantoaxial instability. Intraoperative neuronavigation allows for high accuracy of screw placement, limits complications by sparing injury to the critical structures in the upper cervical spine, and can help surgeons make intraoperative decisions regarding complex pathology.

Keywords

atlantoaxial instrumentation intraoperative imaging neuronavigation O-arm

Introduction

Atlantoaxial instability can result from congenital malformations, systemic inflammatory conditions, neoplasms, and spinal trauma. C1–C2 stabilization can be challenging due to the complex anatomy of the C1 and C2 vertebrae. The proximity of neurovascular structures, the variability of vertebral artery anatomy, and the degree to which upper cervical pathology can distort normal anatomical structures calls for very precise placement of instrumentation to avoid surgical complications.¹,²,³,⁴ Various techniques have been developed to accomplish upper cervical fixation.5,⁶,⁷ Posterior C1 lateral mass and C2 pedicle screw–rod fixation, as described by Harms and Melcher, is a widely accepted, safe, and effective method to achieve fusion.⁸,⁹,¹⁰,¹¹

Traditionally, intraoperative fluoroscopy has been used to aid in instrumentation.¹²,¹³ However, just as surgical techniques have advanced through the years, imaging modalities have as well. Three-dimensional intraoperative imaging with navigation has been implemented to help surmount some of the technical difficulties of screw placement in the upper cervical spine. These intraoperative tools increase the accuracy of screw placement in the spine and aid in the surgical decision making.¹⁴,¹⁵,¹⁶,¹⁷

Studies have shown that O-arm usage allows for accurate screw placement in various levels of the cervical spine.¹⁴,¹⁸,¹⁹,²⁰ When compared directly with conventional fluoroscopy, the O-arm has been shown to increase the accuracy of screw placement in the lower cervical spine.²¹ Considering the unique challenges presented by surgically stabilizing the first two cervical vertebrae, we examined the surgical outcomes, radiation exposure, and accuracy of screw placement. Consequently, the purpose of this study is to provide evidence that the use of intraoperative neuronavigation improves the safety and efficacy of surgical fixation in treating instability at the complex C1–C2 region.

Methods

Seven patients (2 men, 5 women) with atlantoaxial instability underwent stabilization from February 2011 to January 2014. The mean age was 55.3 years (range 37 to 76). Patients presented with a range of conditions leading to C1–C2 instability including rheumatoid arthritis, odontoid fracture, C2 fracture, and ligamentous injury (Fig. 1). Table 1 shows the patient demographic data.

Table 1

Demographics

n	7
Age (y), mean ± SD	55.3 ± 17.1
Sex (M/F)
Male	2
Female	5
Primary indication (n)
Rheumatoid arthritis	3
Odontoid fracture	2
C2 fracture	1
C1–C2 instability	1

Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.

Fig. 1

A 43-year-old woman with rheumatoid arthritis, neck pain, and C1–C2 instability. (A, B) Postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans showing placement of C1 lateral mass screws. (C) Postoperative CT scan showing C2 pedicle screws. (D) Lateral cervical X-ray demonstrating C1–C2 fusion 12 months after surgery.

From February 2011 to January 2014, all instances of atlantoaxial stabilization performed at our institution by a single surgeon were included in this study. The case series was approved by the Institutional Review Board at our institution. In all seven cases, O-arm imaging and navigation were used. The radiologic evaluation was performed preoperatively and included plain X-rays in the lateral and anteroposterior planes as well as cervical computed tomographic (CT) scans and/or magnetic resonance imaging. Operative data such as blood loss, complications, and operative time, defined as time from first incision to closure, was gathered from the anesthesia record. Outcome measures included the neurologic status, screw placement, and fusion rates. These clinical parameters were reviewed independently from the radiologic data. Data is reported as averages ± standard deviation or standard error of measure.

Patients were positioned prone on the Jackson table with a Wilson frame. The patient's head was placed in Mayfield pins and aligned in a neutral position. Lateral X-ray was obtained to assess the proper alignment and reduction. After the standard exposure was achieved, the navigational reference frame was attached to the spinous process of C3. Our institution uses the O-arm, a cone-beam CT scanner that, paired with the StealthStation Surgical Navigation System (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States), allows for stereotactic intraoperative imaging and navigation in multiple planes. An intraoperative CT scan with the O-arm was performed. The images were transferred to the StealthStation navigation system, and the trajectories were planned in the C1 lateral mass and C2 pedicles. The stereotactic wand was utilized to verify the appropriate trajectory.

Pilot holes were drilled bilaterally in C1 and C2, and O-arm navigation was used to maintain course. Once the drilling was completed, a ball-tip probe was used to verify the integrity of the holes prior to final screw placement. The optimal screw length was calculated and the screws were placed under image guidance so that the appropriate positioning and good purchase were achieved. After screw placement, the screw trajectory was verified, and rods were placed into the screw heads and tightened. Decortication was performed and the bone that was removed during the procedure was morselized and placed along the construct.

The screw placement accuracy was determined from the postoperative CT scans that were analyzed by an independent neuroradiologist. The assessment of radiologic data was blinded from the clinical outcomes. Screw placement was graded based on previously characterized grading systems for C1–C3 lateral mass and C2 pedicle screws.³,²² Briefly, screw position for lateral mass screws was defined as type I for ideal placement without cortical violation, type II for acceptable placement with 50% of the diameter located within surrounding cortex and less than 1-mm protrusion from the anterior cortex, and type III for unacceptable placement with clear violation of the transverse foramen or spinal canal.²² The medial and lateral displacement of the C2 pedicle screws was defined as previously described³: grade 0, no deviation; grade 1, deviation less than 2 mm; grade 2, deviation more than 2 mm and less than 4 mm; grade 3, deviation more than 4 mm. Patients were followed clinically at increasing intervals after surgery with imaging to evaluate the fusion progression.

Results

No complications occurred during surgery, such as vertebral artery, nerve root, or spinal cord injury. The initial intraoperative CT was used to determine the proper cervical alignment of the patient; no patients required repositioning prior to the surgery. The mean operative time was 188.7 minutes (range 155 to 213), and the mean blood loss was 271.4 mL (range 50 to 900). The patients received on average 39.0 mGy of radiation with use of the O-arm. Values from the operative records are shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Operative characteristics

Variable	Mean ± SD
Operative time (min)	188.7 ± 23.4
Blood loss (mL)	271.4 ± 294.2
Radiation dose (mGy)	39.0 ± 13.7

Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.

A total of 30 screws were placed in the cervical spine: 14 screws (46.7%) in C1, 8 screws (26.7%) in C2, and 8 screws (26.7%) in C3. In three instances, the C2 anatomy was determined to be not conducive to screw placement, so C3 was used as the site of instrumentation instead. This C2 anatomy was not evident on the preoperative CT. In one instance, it was deemed necessary to place the screws in each of the first three cervical vertebrae. A total of two pedicle screws (25%) were classified as grade 0 (Table 3). Two screws (25%), 4 screws (50%), and 0 screws (0%) were graded as 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Table 3). All C2 pedicle screws deviated medially. The average deviation for all C2 pedicle screws was 1.5 mm, and no screws had cortical violation. The lateral mass screws placed in the first and/or third cervical vertebra had an average deviation of 2.1 mm. All but two were classified as type I or ideal placement (Table 4). No screws required repositioning.

Table 3

C2 pedicle screw placement

Extent of screw deviation	n (%)
Grade 0 (no deviation)	2 (25%)
Grade 1 (<2 mm)	2 (25%)
Grade 2 (>2 and <4 mm)	4 (50%)
Grade 3 (>4 mm)	0 (0%)

Table 4

CT findings regarding C1–C2–C3 screw placement accuracy

	Right C1		Left C1		Right C2		Left C2		Right C3		Left C3
Patient	Grade^a	Deviation (mm)	Grade^a	Deviation (mm)	Grade^b (direction of deviation)	Deviation (mm)	Grade^b (direction of deviation)	Deviation (mm)	Grade^a	Deviation (mm)	Grade^a	Deviation (mm)
1	Type I	3.6	Type I	0.8	2 (medial)	2.9	2 (medial)	2
2	Type I	0.9	Type I	1.7					Type II	0.6	Type I	2
3	Type I	4.3	Type I	1.7	0	0	2 (medial)	2.3
4	Type I	1.2	Type I	0.5					Type I	0.6	Type I	1.7
5	Type I	1.6	Type I	1.6					Type I	2	Type I	4.2
6	Type I	2.5	Type I	1.8	1 (medial)	0.8	0	0
7	Type II	5	Type I	2.6	1 (medial)	2.2	2 (medial)	2	Type I	2.9	Type I	2.9

Note: Grading of C1–C3 lateral mass screws²²: type I, ideal placement without cortical violation; type II, acceptable placement with 50% of diameter located within surrounding cortex and <1 mm protrusion from anterior cortex; type III, unacceptable placement with clear violation of transverse foramen or spinal canal. Grading of C2 pedicle screws, medial and lateral displacement³: grade 0, no deviation; grade 1, deviation < 2 mm; grade 2, deviation > 2 mm and < 4 mm; grade 3, deviation > 4 mm.

Bransford et al.²²

Neo et al.³

The postoperative course was uneventful for all patients. The average length of stay was 2.7 days (range 1 to 6). The mean follow-up was 12 months for patients who underwent atlantoaxial fusion. At follow-up, only one patient showed motion on flexion–extension films, but subsequent CT imaging demonstrated intact instrumentation and solid fusion. The patients largely saw improvement in symptoms and were pleased with the surgery. All patients showed signs of fusion on X-ray performed at 12 months.

Discussion

Intraoperative CT combined with navigation is a useful technology that offers significant advantage in the operating room. It enables the surgeon to precisely track the trajectory of surgical instruments and can improve hardware placement. Intraoperative imaging provides the advantage of capturing the patient's anatomy in the surgical position, which is particularly helpful in cases with complex anatomy or where pathology distorts the normal anatomic structure, as can occur with C1–C2 pathology. In fact, a mounting body of evidence has shown that intraoperative navigation can improve the accuracy of screw placement during spine surgery and the intraoperative anatomical localization and can reduce morbidity.²³,²⁴

Although both the O-arm and conventional fluoroscopy are used intraoperatively, the O-arm has an advantage in that it produces a three-dimensional image. As such, it allows the surgical team to ensure that the patient's vertebrae are aligned in the axial plane in addition to the lateral and oblique planes (as provided by fluoroscopy). This multidimensional visualization correlates with the intraoperative findings, which is particularly important because the simple act of turning the patient prone can produce a discrepancy between the preoperative CT imaging and the intraoperative surgical anatomy and alignment.²⁵

One of the main concerns with screw placement in the superior cervical vertebrae is direct vertebral artery injury. Lateral displacement of the screw can compromise the medial border of the transverse foramen. With the use of intraoperative navigation, the trajectory of each screw can be easily visualized to ensure the vertebra can safely accept a screw, the bony course is able to be maintained, and the surrounding structures including vertebral artery, nerve root, or spinal cord are not injured.

The combination of the O-arm imaging and StealthStation navigation suite allows the surgeon to plan the trajectories in the complicated spinal anatomy. This tool can help navigate difficult cases, as mentioned by Acosta et al, who reported that 24% of their screws could not have been safely placed without intraoperative imaging.²⁶ In our experience, three patients who underwent treatment for atlantoaxial subluxation had screws placed in C3 instead of C2, because the C2 anatomy was deemed inappropriate for screw placement. This decision about the surgical approach would otherwise not have been made without intraoperative imaging and trajectory planning.

As mentioned earlier, placing screws into the C1 and C2 vertebrae can be difficult, especially when inserting screws into the C2 pedicles. Despite these difficulties, the pedicles are desired targets for screws in the C2 vertebrae because they offer much better biomechanical stability.²⁷,²⁸,²⁹,³⁰ Relying only on conventional means, meta-analysis has shown a misplacement rate of C2 pedicle screws from 0.9 to 44.7%.³¹,³²,³³,³⁴,³⁵ Misplacement in the C1 and C2 vertebrae can be particularly dangerous due to the potential for damage to the surrounding neurovasculature structures.³

Navigation has been used to mitigate the difficulties of pedicle screw placement with positive results, showing a misplacement rate from 1 to 11.1%.¹⁵,¹⁷,¹⁹,²⁰,³⁵,³⁶,³⁷ Van de Kelft et al placed 1,922 pedicle screws in 353 patients at the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral levels with a 97.5% accuracy using the O-arm and StealthStation navigation.¹⁷ Also using intraoperative neuronavigation, Larson et al reported a 98.2% accuracy rate in 1,511 pedicle screws placed in adults.³⁶ At the cervical spine, Ishikawa et al noted that of 108 pedicle screws, 88.9% had no perforation, 8.3% had less than 2 mm of perforation, and 2.7% were between 2 and 4 mm outside of the bone.¹⁹ Ling et al reported that 98% of their screws were placed in ideal positions in 21 patients treated with a Harm's construct or occipital cervical fusion using the O-arm, though 2 of the 20 placed in the C2 pedicle deviated by 1 mm.²⁰ In our case series, 90% had less than 4 mm of deviation from the ideal trajectory. In our study, no screws required removal and replacement. The ability to correct screw placement if necessary in the operating room is advantageous and may prevent reoperation for anatomical misalignment and/or poorly placed screws.

Despite the benefits of utilizing O-arm technology, some potential drawbacks do exist. As with any form of CT, radiation doses are a concern with O-arm imaging. Although the operating staff are able to leave the room and avoid virtually any radiation exposure,³⁸ published numbers show that O-arm patients undergo a higher level of radiation (highest tissue dose = 40 mGy with two O-arm scans) than they would with conventional fluoroscopy (highest tissue dose = 6 mGy).³⁹ Tabaraee et al investigated the radiation dose to cadavers following exposure by either the C-arm or O-arm. The study found cadavers received higher doses of radiation with the use of the O-arm, even though the cadavers exposed to C-arm radiation also had a postoperative conventional CT scan.⁴⁰ The risks of increased radiation exposure must be weighed with the benefits of utilizing the O-arm technology.

One reported limitation of intraoperative neuronavigation includes the increased operative time involved to acquire intraoperative CT images and navigation registration. The mean operative times for atlantoaxial fusion vary greatly in the literature.²⁵,⁴¹,⁴² Yang et al compared C1 lateral mass and C2 pedicle screws placed with conventional fluoroscopy to iso-C three-dimensional navigation and found no significant difference in operative times.⁴² In our center, we can acquire data in 18 to 20 minutes from the time the O-arm is positioned and draped and the intraoperative CT is completed. This time is comparable to the time it takes us to set up and access images with biplanar fluoroscopy. Further comparisons between intraoperative navigation and conventional methods for screw placement are necessary to determine if any benefit or detriment exists in operative times with newer technology.

Another problem that can arise from O-arm usage is the potential navigation errors. The navigation reference frame has to be attached to a fixed point on the patient, and any movement that dislodges the reference frame will result in a navigational error. Oftentimes the reference frame is attached to the spinous process of C3 or another vertebra, which has the potential for slight movement during procedures. The operating team must take steps to ensure that the reference frame is fixed throughout the entire procedure. Even with the reference frame in the right position, the O-arm is reported to have an inherent amount of error. Oertel et al found a 2.8 ± 1.9-degree difference between the angulation of the actual and virtual pedicle screws.⁴³ When compared with actual dissection of human cadavers, Santos et al discovered that the overall accuracy of the O-arm images in depicting pedicle screw placement in the thoracolumbar spine was only 73%.⁴⁴ Errors related to navigation may lead to inaccuracies during screw placement.

Conclusion

Our experience with C1–C2 fusion shows that O-arm imaging and navigation can offer adequate screw placement accuracy without complications and with good surgical outcomes. This robust technology can assist in the placement of instrumentation during difficult procedures like atlantoaxial fixation. Further investigation may include minimally invasive surgery using intraoperative navigation and performing a cost–benefit analysis comparing the O-arm with other imaging modalities and navigation.

Disclosures

Jacob D. Smith, none

Megan M. Jack, none

Nicholas R. Harn, none

Judson R. Bertsch, none

Paul M. Arnold, Consultant: Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Stryker Spine, FzioMed; Travel/meeting expenses: AOSpine North America

References

Lall

Patel

N J

Resnick

D K

A review of complications associated with craniocervical fusion surgery

Neurosurgery 2010 67 5 1396–1402 , discussion 1402–1403

Yamazaki

Okawa

Furuya

, et al.

Anomalous vertebral arteries in the extra- and intraosseous regions of the craniovertebral junction visualized by 3-dimensional computed tomographic angiography: analysis of 100 consecutive surgical cases and review of the literature

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012 37 22 E1389–E1397

Neo

Sakamoto

Fujibayashi

Nakamura

The clinical risk of vertebral artery injury from cervical pedicle screws inserted in degenerative vertebrae

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005 30 24 2800–2805

Yeom

J S

Buchowski

J M

Park

K W

Chang

B S

Lee

C K

Riew

K D

Undetected vertebral artery groove and foramen violations during C1 lateral mass and C2 pedicle screw placement

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008 33 25 E942–E949

Magerl

Seemann

P S

Stable posterior fusion of the atlas and axis by transarticular screw fixation

In:

Kehr

Weidner

eds.

Cervical Spine I

Vienna, Austria

Springer

1987 322–327

Goel

Laheri

Plate and screw fixation for atlanto-axial subluxation

Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1994 129 1–2 47–53

Harms

Melcher

R P

Posterior C1-C2 fusion with polyaxial screw and rod fixation

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001 26 22 2467–2471

Stulik

Vyskocil

Sebesta

Kryl

Atlantoaxial fixation using the polyaxial screw-rod system

Eur Spine J 2007 16 4 479–484

Vergara

Bal

J S

Hickman Casey

A T

Crockard

H A

Choi

C1-C2 posterior fixation: are 4 screws better than 2?

Neurosurgery 2012 71 (1, Suppl Operative): 86–95

10.

Hott

J S

Lynch

J J

Chamberlain

R H

Sonntag

V K

Crawford

N R

Biomechanical comparison of C1-2 posterior fixation techniques

J Neurosurg Spine 2005 2 2 175–181

11.

Kuroki

Rengachary

S S

Goel

V K

Holekamp

S A

Pitkänen

Ebraheim

N A

Biomechanical comparison of two stabilization techniques of the atlantoaxial joints: transarticular screw fixation versus screw and rod fixation

Neurosurgery 2005 56 (1, Suppl): 151–159 , discussion 151–159

12.

Tessitore

Bartoli

Schaller

Payer

Accuracy of freehand fluoroscopy-guided placement of C1 lateral mass and C2 isthmic screws in atlanto-axial instability

Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2011 153 7 1417–1425 , discussion 1425

13.

Yeom

J S

Buchowski

J M

Park

K W

Chang

B S

Lee

C K

Riew

K D

Lateral fluoroscopic guide to prevent occipitocervical and atlantoaxial joint violation during C1 lateral mass screw placement

Spine J 2009 9 7 574–579

14.

Guppy

K H

Chakrabarti

Banerjee

The use of intraoperative navigation for complex upper cervical spine surgery

Neurosurg Focus 2014 36 3 E5

15.

Hsieh

J C

Drazin

Firempong

A O

Pashman

Johnson

J P

Kim

T T

Accuracy of intraoperative computed tomography image-guided surgery in placing pedicle and pelvic screws for primary versus revision spine surgery

Neurosurg Focus 2014 36 3 E2

16.

Schouten

Lee

Boyd

, et al.

Intra-operative cone-beam CT (O-arm) and stereotactic navigation in acute spinal trauma surgery

J Clin Neurosci 2012 19 8 1137–1143

17.

Van de Kelft

Costa

Van der Planken

Schils

A prospective multicenter registry on the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral levels with the use of the O-arm imaging system and StealthStation Navigation

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012 37 25 E1580–E1587

18.

Wang

Yin

Zhou

Intraoperative computed tomography with an integrated navigation system in stabilization surgery for complex craniovertebral junction malformation

J Spinal Disord Tech 2014 27 5 245–252

19.

Ishikawa

Kanemura

Yoshida

, et al.

Intraoperative, full-rotation, three-dimensional image (O-arm)-based navigation system for cervical pedicle screw insertion

J Neurosurg Spine 2011 15 5 472–478

20.

Ling

J M

Tiruchelvarayan

Seow

W T

H B

Surgical treatment of adult and pediatric C1/C2 subluxation with intraoperative computed tomography guidance

Surg Neurol Int 2013 4 02 S109–S117

21.

Shin

M H

Hur

J W

Ryu

K S

Park

C K

Prospective comparison study between the fluoroscopy-guided and navigation coupled with O-arm-guided pedicle screw placement in the thoracic and lumbosacral spines

J Spinal Disord Tech 2015 28 6 E347–E351

22.

Bransford

R J

Freeborn

M A

Russo

A J

, et al.

Accuracy and complications associated with posterior C1 screw fixation techniques: a radiographic and clinical assessment

Spine J 2012 12 3 231–238

23.

Verma

Krishan

Haendlmayer

Mohsen

Functional outcome of computer-assisted spinal pedicle screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies including 5,992 pedicle screws

Eur Spine J 2010 19 3 370–375

24.

Tjardes

Shafizadeh

Rixen

, et al.

Image-guided spine surgery: state of the art and future directions

Eur Spine J 2010 19 1 25–45

25.

Costa

Cardia

Ortolina

Fabio

Zerbi

Fornari

Spinal navigation: standard preoperative versus intraoperative computed tomography data set acquisition for computer-guidance system: radiological and clinical study in 100 consecutive patients

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011 36 24 2094–2098

26.

Acosta

F L

Quinones-Hinojosa

Gadkary

C A

, et al.

Frameless stereotactic image-guided C1-C2 transarticular screw fixation for atlantoaxial instability: review of 20 patients

J Spinal Disord Tech 2005 18 5 385–391

27.

Abumi

Itoh

Taneichi

Kaneda

Transpedicular screw fixation for traumatic lesions of the middle and lower cervical spine: description of the techniques and preliminary report

J Spinal Disord 1994 7 1 19–28

28.

Dunlap

B J

Karaikovic

E E

Park

H S

Sokolowski

M J

Zhang

L Q

Load sharing properties of cervical pedicle screw-rod constructs versus lateral mass screw-rod constructs

Eur Spine J 2010 19 5 803–808

29.

Johnston

T L

Karaikovic

E E

Lautenschlager

E P

Marcu

Cervical pedicle screws vs. lateral mass screws: uniplanar fatigue analysis and residual pullout strengths

Spine J 2006 6 6 667–672

30.

Jones

E L

Heller

J G

Silcox

D H

Hutton

W C

Cervical pedicle screws versus lateral mass screws. Anatomic feasibility and biomechanical comparison

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997 22 9 977–982

31.

Elliott

R E

Tanweer

Boah

, et al.

Comparison of screw malposition and vertebral artery injury of C2 pedicle and transarticular screws: meta-analysis and review of the literature

J Spinal Disord Tech 2014 27 6 305–315

32.

Ito

Neo

Yoshida

Fujibayashi

Yoshitomi

Nakamura

Efficacy of computer-assisted pedicle screw insertion for cervical instability in RA patients

Rheumatol Int 2007 27 6 567–574

33.

Kast

Mohr

Richter

H P

Börm

Complications of transpedicular screw fixation in the cervical spine

Eur Spine J 2006 15 3 327–334

34.

Kotani

Abumi

Ito

Minami

Improved accuracy of computer-assisted cervical pedicle screw insertion

J Neurosurg 2003 99 (3, Suppl): 257–263

35.

Silbermann

Riese

Allam

Reichert

Koeppert

Gutberlet

Computer tomography assessment of pedicle screw placement in lumbar and sacral spine: comparison between free-hand and O-arm based navigation techniques

Eur Spine J 2011 20 6 875–881

36.

Larson

A N

Santos

E R

Polly

D W

, et al.

Pediatric pedicle screw placement using intraoperative computed tomography and 3-dimensional image-guided navigation

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012 37 3 E188–E194

37.

Dinesh

S K

Tiruchelvarayan

A prospective study on the use of intraoperative computed tomography (iCT) for image-guided placement of thoracic pedicle screws

Br J Neurosurg 2012 26 6 838–844

38.

Abdullah

K G

Bishop

F S

Lubelski

Steinmetz

M P

Benzel

E C

Mroz

T E

Radiation exposure to the spine surgeon in lumbar and thoracolumbar fusions with the use of an intraoperative computed tomographic 3-dimensional imaging system

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012 37 17 E1074–E1078

39.

Bandela

J R

Jacob

R P

Arreola

Griglock

T M

Bova

Yang

Use of CT-based intraoperative spinal navigation: management of radiation exposure to operator, staff, and patients

World Neurosurg 2013 79 2 390–394

40.

Tabaraee

Gibson

A G

Karahalios

D G

Potts

E A

Mobasser

J P

Burch

Intraoperative cone beam-computed tomography with navigation (O-ARM) versus conventional fluoroscopy (C-ARM): a cadaveric study comparing accuracy, efficiency, and safety for spinal instrumentation

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013 38 22 1953–1958

41.

Jeon

S W

Jeong

J H

Choi

G H

Moon

S M

Hwang

H S

Choi

S K

Clinical outcome of posterior fixation of the C1 lateral mass and C2 pedicle by polyaxial screw and rod

Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2012 114 6 539–544

42.

Yang

Y L

Zhou

D S

J L

Comparison of isocentric C-arm 3-dimensional navigation and conventional fluoroscopy for C1 lateral mass and C2 pedicle screw placement for atlantoaxial instability

J Spinal Disord Tech 2013 26 3 127–134

43.

Oertel

M F

Hobart

Stein

Schreiber

Scharbrodt

Clinical and methodological precision of spinal navigation assisted by 3D intraoperative O-arm radiographic imaging

J Neurosurg Spine 2011 14 4 532–536

44.

Santos

E R

Ledonio

C G

Castro

C A

Truong

W H

Sembrano

J N

The accuracy of intraoperative O-arm images for the assessment of pedicle screw position

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012 37 2 E119–E125

Screw Placement Accuracy and Outcomes following O-Arm-Navigated Atlantoaxial Fusion: A Feasibility Study

Abstract

Study Design

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Disclosures

References