Download PDF
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2024; 85(02): 132-136
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1767723
Original Article

Lateral Mass Intrapedicular Screw Fixation for Subaxial Cervical Spines: A Short- to Medium-Term Retrospective Follow-Up Study of 20 Cases

Kota Kojima
1   Department of Spine and Spinal Cord Surgery, Makita General Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
,
Shunji Asamoto
1   Department of Spine and Spinal Cord Surgery, Makita General Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
,
Takahiro Hori
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Makita General Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
,
Takahiro Endo
1   Department of Spine and Spinal Cord Surgery, Makita General Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
,
Yasuyuki Fukui
1   Department of Spine and Spinal Cord Surgery, Makita General Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Lateral mass intrapedicular screw(LMIS) fixation was introduced in 2021 as an alternative method for the fixation of subaxial cervical spines for the treatment of various cervical spine disease. The objective of this study is to provide a short- to medium-term result of the 20 patients who underwent cervical spine fixation using LMIS.

Methods Twenty patients with varying cervical spine pathology who underwent cervical spine fixation using LMIS in a 21-month period were included in the study. Postoperative computed tomography (CT) imaging was used to evaluate the screw placement.

Results A total of 105 screws were used. The average screw size used was 3.5 × 14 mm. The average screw angle in the axial plane was 18 degrees. Five screws had breached the inner cortex of the vertebral canal. None of the patients had any postsurgical neurologic deficit. Fifteen screws did not reach the pedicle. Intraoperative fixation was excellent and no screw showed signs of loosening in the subsequent follow-up imaging.

Conclusion LMIS is a good alternative to the commonly used methods for subaxial cervical spine fixation and is worth considering in many patients.

Keywords

cervical spine surgery - lateral mass intrapedicular screw fixation - cervical spine fixation - LMIS


Publication History

Received: 06 February 2022

Accepted: 27 December 2022

Article published online:
01 May 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Barrey C, Mertens P, Rumelhart C, Cotton F, Jund J, Perrin G. Biomechanical evaluation of cervical lateral mass fixation: a comparison of the Roy-Camille and Magerl screw techniques. J Neurosurg 2004; 100 (3, Suppl Spine): 268-276
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Esses SI, Sachs BL, Dreyzin V. Complications associated with the technique of pedicle screw fixation. A selected survey of ABS members. Spine 1993; 18 (15) 2231-2238 , discussion 2238–2239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Johnston TL, Karaikovic EE, Lautenschlager EP, Marcu D. Cervical pedicle screws vs. lateral mass screws: uniplanar fatigue analysis and residual pullout strengths. Spine J 2006; 6 (06) 667-672
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Patil ND, Srivastava SK, Bhosale S, Purohit S. Computed tomography- and radiography-based morphometric analysis of the lateral mass of the subaxial cervical spine in the Indian population. Asian Spine J 2018; 12 (01) 18-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kojima K, Ishikawa M, Endo T, Muto J, Fukui Y, Asamoto S. Lateral mass intra-pedicular screw fixation for subaxial cervical spines: an alternative surgical technique. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine 2021; 12 (02) 165-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kojima K, Asamoto S, Kobayashi Y, Ishikawa M, Fukui Y. Cortical bone trajectory and traditional trajectory–a radiological evaluation of screw-bone contact. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2015; 157 (07) 1173-1178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cho W, Cho SK, Wu C. The biomechanics of pedicle screw-based instrumentation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (08) 1061-1065
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Perez-Orribo L, Kalb S, Reyes PM, Chang SW, Crawford NR. Biomechanics of lumbar cortical screw-rod fixation versus pedicle screw-rod fixation with and without interbody support. Spine 2013; 38 (08) 635-641
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar