Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_6029_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •1.1.2 Atlas (C1)
- •1.1.3 Axis (Epistropheus, C2)
- •Abbreviations
- •1: Surgical Anatomy
- •1.1 Bony Structures
- •1.1.1 Occipital Bone (C0)
- •1.1.1.1 Occipital Squama
- •1.1.1.2 Occipital Condyles
- •1.1.1.3 Clivus
- •1.2 Ligaments and Joints
- •1.2.1 Atlanto-Occipital Joints
- •1.2.2 Atlantoaxial Lateral Joints
- •1.2.3 Atlantodental Joint
- •1.3 Muscles of CVJ and UCS
- •1.4 Vascular Anatomy of CVJ and UCS
- •1.4.1 Vertebral Artery (VA)
- •1.4.1.1 Branches of VA
- •1.4.2 Internal Carotid Artery (ICA)
- •1.5 Neural Anatomy
- •1.5.1 Spinal Cord
- •1.5.2 Cervical Spine Nerves
- •References
- •2: Biomechanical Remarks
- •2.1 CVJ and UCS Axial Load Distribution
- •2.2 Clinical and Morphological Instability of CVJ and UCS
- •2.3 Occipitoatlantal Joint Stability and Instability
- •2.4 Atlantoaxial Joint Stability and Instability
- •2.5 For Practical Purposes We Can Summarize
- •References
- •3: Special Radiology
- •3.1 Radiographic Data Analysis
- •3.1.1 Basal/Clival Parameters
- •3.1.2 Craniocervical Parameters
- •3.1.3 Atlanto-Axial Parameters
- •3.2 Dynamic Imaging
- •3.3 Vascular Imaging
- •3.4 Our Preference
- •3.4.2 Traumatic Cases
- •3.4.3 Neoplastic Conditions
- •References
- •4: surgical approaches
- •4.1 Posterior Midline Approach
- •4.1.1 Surgical Technique
- •4.2 Posterior Paramedian Approach
- •4.3 Lateral Approaches
- •4.3.1 Posterolateral Approaches
- •4.3.2 Lateral Approach for C1-C2 Transarticular Fixation
- •4.3.2.1 Surgical Technique
- •4.3.2.2 Our Preference
- •4.4 High Anterolateral Approach
- •4.4.1 Surgical Technique
- •4.4.2 Our Preference
- •4.5 Transoral Approach
- •4.5.1.1 Anatomical Background
- •4.5.1.2 Surgical Technique
- •4.5.2 Extended Transoral Approaches
- •4.5.2.1 Transoral – Transmaxillar Approach
- •4.5.2.2 Transoral – Transmandibular Approach
- •4.5.2.3 Our Preference
- •4.5.3 Minimally Invasive Approaches to Retropharyngeal UCS
- •4.5.3.1 Our Preference
- •References
- •5: Basic Principles of Reconstruction Techniques
- •5.1 Defect/Instability/Decompression
- •5.2 Construct Design
- •5.2.1 Plate and Screw Constructs in the CVJ
- •5.2.2 Anterior Structural Constructs
- •5.3 Fracture Healing/Bone Fusion
- •5.3.1 Our Preference
- •References
- •6.1 Occipital Bone as Anchoring Structure
- •6.1.1 Occipital Squama
- •6.1.1.1 Anatomical Background
- •6.1.1.2 Surgical Technique
- •6.1.1.3 Our Preference
- •6.1.2 Occipital Condyles
- •6.1.2.2 Posterior Transcondylar Screw (Fig. 6.4)
- •6.1.2.4 Our Preference
- •6.1.3 Clivus
- •6.2 Atlas as an Anchoring Structure
- •6.2.1 Posterior Lateral Massa Screw
- •6.2.1.1 Anatomical Background
- •6.2.1.2 Surgical Technique
- •6.2.1.3 Our Preference
- •6.3.2 Long Pars Interarticularis Screw – Transisthmic Screw
- •6.3.2.1 Anatomical Background
- •6.2.2 Anterior C1 Lateral Mass Screw
- •6.2.2.1 Anatomical Background
- •6.2.2.2 Surgical Technique
- •6.2.2.3 Our Preference
- •6.2.3.1 Our Preference
- •6.3 Axis as an Anchoring Structure
- •6.3.1 Pedicle Screw
- •6.3.1.1 Anatomical Background
- •6.3.1.2 Surgical Technique
- •Standard Technique
- •Free Hand Technique
- •6.3.1.3 Our Preference
- •6.3.1.4 Our Surgical Technique
- •6.3.2.2 Surgical Technique
- •6.3.2.3 Our Preference
- •6.3.2.4 Our Surgical Technique
- •6.3.3 Short C2 Pars Interarticularis Screw
- •6.3.3.1 Our Preference
- •6.3.4 Laminar C2 Screws
- •6.3.4.1 Anatomical Background
- •6.3.4.2 Surgical Technique
- •6.3.4.3 Our Preference
- •6.3.5 Odontoid Process Screw
- •6.3.5.1 Anatomical Background
- •6.3.5.2 Surgical Technique
- •6.3.5.3 Our Preference
- •6.3.5.4 Our Surgical Technique
- •6.3.6 Screw Introduced into C2 Body
- •6.3.6.1 Our Preference
- •6.4 Monosegmental Fusion Constructs
- •6.4.1.1 Posterior C0-1 Fixation Methods
- •6.4.1.2 Our Preference
- •6.4.1.3 Posterior C1-2 Fixation Methods
- •Mixter and Osgood Silk Loop
- •Atlantoaxial Wire and Graft
- •Brooks and Jenkins – Wire and Graft
- •Sonntag – Wire and Graft
- •Acrylic C1-2 Fusions
- •Halifax Atlantoaxial Interlaminar Clamps
- •Our Preference
- •Transarticular C2-1 Screw Fixation (Magerl)
- •Our Preference
- •C1 Lateral Mass – C2 Pedicle Screw and Rod Fixation (Goel, Harms)
- •Our Preference
- •C1 Lateral Mass – C2 Crosslaminar Screw and Rod Fixation (Wright)
- •Our Preference
- •Intralaminar Screws C1 – Short Pars C2 (Donnellan)
- •Our Preference
- •6.4.2 Anterior Monosegmental Fusion Constructs
- •6.4.2.1 Anterior Screw Fixation of C2-1
- •6.4.2.2 Our Preference
- •6.4.2.3 Anterior Plate or Construct C1-2
- •6.4.2.4 Our Preference
- •6.4.3 Lateral Monosegmental Fusion
- •6.4.3.1 Our Preference
- •6.5 CVJ and UCS as a Part of Multisegmental Constructs
- •6.5.1 Occipitocervical Constructs
- •6.5.1.1 Our Preference
- •6.5.2 Suboccipital Constructs
- •6.5.3 Anterior Multisegmental Constructs
- •References
- •7: Virtual and Real TimeNavigational Techniques
- •7.1 Technique Description
- •7.1.1 Virtual Image-Guided Surgery (vIGS)
- •7.1.1.1 Preoperative Imaging Based vIGS
- •7.1.1.2 Intraoperative Imaging Based vIGS
- •7.2 Our Preference
- •References
- •8: Traumatic Atlantooccipital Dislocation (AOD)
- •8.1 Etiology
- •8.2 Clinical Symptoms
- •8.3 Radiology
- •8.4 Treatment Strategy
- •8.5 Our Preference
- •References
- •9: Occipital Condyle Fractures
- •9.1 Etiology and Epidemiology
- •9.2 Clinical Symptoms
- •9.3 Radiology
- •9.4 Treatment Strategy
- •9.5 Our Preference
- •References
- •10: Atlas Fractures
- •10.2 Etiology
- •10.3 Clinical Symptoms
- •10.4 Diagnosis
- •10.5 Treatment Strategy
- •10.6 Our Preference
- •10.7 Our Treatment Algorithm
- •References
- •11: Odontoid Process Fractures
- •11.2 Etiology and Epidemiology
- •11.3 Clinical Symptoms
- •11.4 Radiology
- •11.5 Treatment Strategy
- •11.6 Our Preference
- •References
- •12: Fractures of the Ring of Axis (Hangman Type Fractures)
- •12.1 History
- •12.2.1 Effendi
- •12.2.2 Francis
- •12.2.3 Levine and Edwards
- •12.3 Etiology and Epidemiology
- •12.4 Symptoms and Signs
- •12.5 Radiology
- •12.6 Treatment Strategy
- •12.7 Our Preference
- •References
- •13: Miscellaneous C2 Fractures
- •13.2 Clinical Symptoms
- •13.3 Radiology
- •13.4 Treatment Strategy and Our Preference
- •13.4.1 Coronal Axis Body Fractures
- •13.4.1.1 Our Preference
- •13.4.2 Sagittal Axis Body Fractures
- •13.4.2.1 Our Preference
- •13.4.3 Transverse Axis Body Fractures
- •13.4.3.1 Our Preference
- •13.4.4 Burst Fractures of Axis Body
- •13.4.4.1 Our Preference
- •13.4.5 Tear Drop Fractures
- •13.4.7 Fractures of the Superior Facet Area
- •13.4.7.1 Our Preference
- •13.4.8 Fractures Through the Transverse Foramen
- •13.5 Combination C1-2 Fractures
- •References
- •14: Multiple Fractures of Axis and Atlas-Axis Fracture Combinations
- •14.1 Multiple Fractures of the Axis
- •14.1.1 Our Preference
- •14.2 Combined Atlas-Axis Fractures
- •14.2.1 Our Preference
- •References
- •15: Acute Traumatic Atlantoaxial Dislocation (AAD) in Adults
- •15.1 Etiology and Epidemiology
- •15.2 Clinical Diagnosis
- •15.3 Radiology
- •15.4 Treatment Strategy
- •15.5 Our Preference
- •References
- •16: Posttraumatic Deformity
- •16.1 Etiology
- •16.2 Clinical Symptoms
- •16.3 Radiology
- •16.4 Treatment Strategy
- •16.5 Odontoid Pseudarthrosis
- •16.6 Our Preference
- •References
- •17.1 Incidence
- •17.2 Clinical Symptoms and Diagnosis
- •17.3 Radiology
- •17.4 Differential Diagnosis
- •17.5 Treatment Strategy
- •17.6 Our Preference
- •References
- •18: Rheumatoid Arthritis
- •18.1 Etiology and UCS Pathophysiology
- •18.2 History and Incidence
- •18.3 Clinical Symptoms
- •18.4 Radiology
- •18.5 Treatment Strategy
- •18.6 Our Preference
- •References
- •19: Tumors
- •19.1 Extradural UCS Tumors
- •19.1.1 Radiological Remarks
- •19.1.2 Therapeutic Remarks
- •19.1.3 Surgical Oncologic Terms
- •19.1.4 Primary Bone Tumors of UCS
- •19.1.4.1 Benign Primary Bone Tumors
- •Enneking Staging of Primary Benign Spine Tumors
- •WBB Surgical Staging
- •Clinical Symptoms
- •Radiology
- •General Treatment Strategy
- •Osteoid Osteomas and Osteoblastomas
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment Strategy
- •Our Preference
- •Aneurysmal Bone Cysts
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment Strategy
- •Our Preference
- •Giant Cell Tumors (GCT)
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment Strategy
- •Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis (LCH) – Eosinophilic Granulomas, Histiocytosis X
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment Strategy
- •Other Benign Tumors and Tumor-Like Lesions
- •19.1.4.2 Malignant Primary Bone Tumors
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •19.1.4.3 Chordoma
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment Strategy
- •Our Preference
- •19.1.4.4 Chondrosarcoma
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment Strategy
- •19.1.4.5 Ewing Sarcoma (ES)
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment Strategy
- •19.1.4.6 Osteogenic Sarcoma (OS)
- •19.1.4.7 Solitary Plasmocytoma
- •19.1.5 Secondary Bone Tumors
- •19.1.5.1 Diagnosis
- •19.1.5.3 Therapeutic Strategy
- •19.1.5.4 Our Preference
- •19.2 Intradural Tumors (Extramedullary, Intramedullary)
- •References
- •20: Congenital and Developmental Abnormalities
- •20.1 Etiology
- •20.2 Clinical Appearance
- •20.3 Radiology
- •20.4 Anomalies of the Occiput
- •20.5 Condylus Tertius
- •20.6 Condylar Hypoplasia
- •20.7 Basioccipital Hypoplasia
- •20.8 Atlantooccipital Assimilation
- •20.9 Atlas Anomalies
- •20.10 Axis Anomalies
- •20.11 Persistent Ossiculum Terminale
- •20.12 Odontoid Hypoplasia and Aplasia
- •20.13 Os Odontoideum
- •20.14 Our Preference
- •20.15 Basilar Impression, Invagination
- •20.16 Our Preference
- •References
- •21: Degenerative Disorders
- •21.1 History
- •21.2 Etiology
- •21.3 Clinical Symptoms
- •21.4 Radiology
- •21.5 Treatment Strategy
- •21.6 Our Preference
- •21.7 Practical Conclusion
- •References
- •22: Surgical failures
- •22.1 Complications of Approach
- •22.2 Complications of Direct Decompression
- •22.4 Complications of Hardware Insertion
- •References
- •Index

18
2 Biomechanical Remarks
one side by others [23, 27]. In the occipitoatlantoaxial
complex, 85–90% of all axial rotation comes from the
atlantoaxial segment [10, 23]. Penning and Wilmink [27]
found that atlantoaxial complex accounted for 56% of the
whole cervical rotation with respect to the first thoracic
vertebra. Normal range of rotation between C1 and C2 is
determined on an average about 40° to each side [3, 17,
34]. Range of axial rotation to one side in C1-C2 has
been reported in the various studies to be between 23°
[10] and 47° [33]. The great differences in the results are
mostly due to the differences in the methods used and
dissimilarities of in vitro and in vivo studies. For example, Dvorak et al. reported in their in vivo (CT) tests an
average range of axial rotation 32.2° and consecutively,
43.1° [4]. The high rotational motion range is facilitated
by very loose AA joint capsules and limited quite freely
by allar ligaments. The allar ligaments (connecting the
dens axis with occipital condyles and the anterior arch of
the atlas) consist of high amount of collagen fibers and
their major function is to prevent redundant axial rotation
to the contralateral side [6, 22, 33]. These ligaments
together with tectorial membrane also limit the flexion of
the occiput and during lateral bending are responsible for
the forced rotation of the axis [3]. The cruciate ligament
is formed by horizontally oriented TAL and vertically
oriented longitudinal fibers (Fig. 1.5, Chap. 1). Between
the odontoid process and transverse ligament is a thin
layer of cartilage, which allows for TAL to move freely
during rotation and preserves it from friction damage.
The transverse ligament consists of collagen fibers and is
very resistant to breakage. Spence et al. in their original
cadaver tests reported stress necessary to TAL rupture in
average 580 N (38–104 kg) [29]. Dvorak et al. described
experimental failure of TAL only under the force 170–
700 N (corresponding about 17–70 kg) [8]. Restriction of
anterior translation of the atlas during flexion of the head
is the main function of TAL while still permitting its axial
rotation around the dens. The secondary restriction of
this motion is secured by atlantodental component of the
allar ligaments. The tertiary stabilizers are the accessory
atlantoaxial ligaments and capsular ligaments [5, 6]. TAL
partially protects the C1-C2 joint also from a rotary dislocation. Posterior translation is prevented by mechanical
bracing of the anterior portion of C1 on the dens. The
apical ligament due to its laxity probably has no important function is movement restriction [15]. The IAR for
sagittal plane motion is located in the region of the middle third of the dens and for axial rotation in the central
axis of the dens, respectively [33].
2.1 CVJ and UCS Axial Load Distribution
The motion characteristics of UCS are unique; nevertheless, the axial load distribution in CVJ represents another
exceptional situation irreproducible in other parts of
spine (Fig. 2.1). The weight of the head and the axial
Fig. 2.1 Diagram showing the axial load distribution changing from two to three force vectors at the C2 level. (a) CT in 3D recon-
struction in frontal plane. (b) CT in 3D reconstruction in sagittal plane. Note the consequent hangman type fracture

2.2 Clinical and Morphological Instability of CVJ and UCS
19
Fig. 2.2 Traumatic consequences of atypical axial load distribu-
tion in CVJ and UCS depicted on coronal CT reconstructions.
(a) fracture of occipital condyle. (b) lateral C1 mass fracture
loads applied to the head are transmitted through the two
occipital condyles to two AO joints. The wedge-shaped
lateral masses of C1 transfer the weight downwards with
logical tendency to distract laterally. If the C1 ring and
TAL act properly, the force is further transmitted to two
C2 facets; however, further load distribution in C2 vertebra is divided from two force vectors into three points at
the C2-C3 interface [14]. Most of the load is thus transmitted to the C2-C3 disk and less to the posterior C2/C3
facetal joints. The force transmission divergence has
some critical places where consequently fractures can
arise in the case of overload (Fig. 2.2). First critical place
is the atlas. Wedge-shaped lateral masses and the C1 free
floating “washer” ring have to buffer the axial force and
if overloaded the atlas bursting leading to Jefferson-like
fractures can happen (Chap. 10). The second critical
location is the C2 pars interarticularis and mainly its isthmus as locus of minor resistance. The axial force overload can lead to overstressing of the bone resistance
and create the hangman type fractures. Certainly, previously described model situations can be further modified by concomitant rotation, lateral bending of sagittal
movement. This physiological CVJ and UCS load distribution has to be respected during reconstruction procedures also.
2.2 Clinical and Morphological
Instability of CVJ and UCS
It is of utmost importance to decide whether the UCS
is stable or not in order to determine correct treatment
simultaneous with condyle fracture. (c) fracture of lateral facet
C2 pillar. Note the TAL avulsion fragment and type III odontoid
fracture
choice in various types of pathological lesions in this
region.
Clinical stability at the C0-C1 and C1-C2 joints is
intimately linked to their functional anatomy. Clinical
instability can occur as a result of trauma, degenerative
conditions, tumors, inflammation, or surgery; however,
its definition is still controversial. Significant disagreement exists even among experts. White and Panjabi [35]
defined clinical instability as the loss of the ability of the
spine under physiologic loads to maintain relationships
between vertebrae in such a way that there is neither
initial nor subsequent damage to the spinal cord or nerve
roots, and in addition, there is neither development of
incapacitating deformity nor severe pain. They further
defined physiological loads as loads that are incurred
during normal activity. Incapacitating deformity was
defined as gross deformity that the patient finds intolerable. Severe pain was defined as pain that cannot be
controlled by non-opioid analgesic medications.
In short, it means that the spine is unable to resist
the physiological loads without pain, deformity and/or
neurological deficit. Such a broad definition, in fact,
encompasses nearly all the pathological conditions
detectable in UCS.
The definition of mechanical instability is more
exactly specified than clinical one.
In fact, whatever static or dynamic position of UCS
beyond the physiological limits is detected must be
considered as instability.
Static and dynamic radiographic investigations with
consecutive exact measurements are providing us
information necessary to decide if the spine is stable or
not (see Chap. 3).

20
2 Biomechanical Remarks
Table 2.1 Morphological criteria for upper cervical spine
instability [35]
>8° Axial rotation C0-C1 to one side
(measurable only on CT)
>1 mm C0-C1 translation (measurable only on C)
>7 mm Overhang C1-C2 (total right and left, on
anteroposterior radiograph)
>45° Axial rotation C1-C2 to one side
>3 mm C1-C2 translation at anterior atlantodental
interval (AADI)
<13 mm posterior atlantodental interval (PADI)
Avulsed transverse ligament
2.3 Occipitoatlantal Joint Stability and Instability
Stability in this joint is secured mainly by their tight
capsules, the anterior and posterior atlanto-occipital
membrane, and through the ligaments between the
occiput and the axis: the tectorial membrane, allar ligaments, and apical ligament [13]. Instability in the
C0-C1 joints is less common than at the C1-C2 level.
It can be result of trauma, rheumatoid arthritis, infection, tumor, or destabilizing surgery.
Vishteh et al. experimentally demonstrated the AO
hypermobility caused by resection of occipital condyle. They found flexion-extension, lateral bending,
and axial rotation increased 15.3%, 40.8%, and 28.1%,
respectively after 50% condylectomy [32].
The AO joint is relatively unstable in children
because of its structural characteristic and ligamentous
laxity. Its stability increases in adulthood due to a
decrease in elasticity of the ligaments [24]. OA dislocations (AOD) can be in the anterior, posterior, or longitudinal directions. Normally, the AO joint sagittal
translation should not exceed 1mm, and the distraction
distance (CCI) can reach 2 mm maximally on parasagittal CT images [19, 20, 36]. From other parameters
used to evaluate the AOD, the Powers ratio is most frequently used [28]; however, the basion-dental interval
(BDI) and basion-posterior axial line interval (BAI)
both of which should not exceed 12 mm (“rule of
twelve”) are considered as the most exact and AODspecific measurements [2, 11, 12]. Greater than 8° of
unilateral axial rotation as other instability sign can be
seriously measured only on superimposed CT scans
[4, 6]. Basilar invagination and/or basilar impression
represent the vertical instability. It appears most often
in developmental anomalies and rheumatoid arthritis
but also can occur in tumors or trauma. Methods of
determining vertical CVJ instability are described in
detail in appropriate chapters (see Chaps. 3 and 20).
2.4 Atlantoaxial Joint Stability and Instability
The transverse atlantal ligament has a key role in the
maintaining AA stability. Especially, allar ligaments
but also atlantoaxial accessory ligaments, apical ligament, and joint capsules provide secondary security
[13, 22]. Instability at the AA joint is often presented as
abnormal translation and/or axial rotation; nevertheless,
other dislocations are also possible. Mainly TAL limits
anterior translation of C1 on C2 as it will be described
in further chapters. Fielding et al. [9] noted that anterior
AADI is normally not more than 3 mm. AADI of
3–5 mm implies damage of the transverse ligament, and
AADI measured 5 mm or more indicates that the accessory stabilizing system (especially, the allar ligaments)
has been also damaged. A PADI of less than 13 mm
may also denote anterior translational instability. The
allar ligaments alone are not capable of preventing
excessive anterior horizontal displacement if the transverse ligament is ruptured. If the odontoid process is
hypoplastic, fractured, or resected logically the ligaments also cannot provide their stabilizing function.
Posterior AA translation, despite being rare, can be
detected in trauma, tumor, or other pathologies destroying odontoid – TAL catch system as well. Nonetheless,
more frequently, the rotational dislocations of different
types are diagnosed [3, 4, 6].
The rotation-limiting ability of the alar ligament was
investigated by Dvorak et al. [6] in cadaver studies.
They observed a mean increase of 9° or 30% of the original mean rotation divided equally between the C0-C1
(+5°) and C1-C2 (+4°) complexes in axial rotation in
response to an alar ligament lesion on the opposite side.
The laboratory findings of Dvorak and Panjabi were
verified with a clinical CT study of 9 healthy adults and
43 patients with cervical spine instability with conclusion that axial rotation of the C0-C1-C2 complex can be
increased after trauma-lesions of the alar ligaments [5].
In general, these studies showed that the main function

References
21
of the alar ligament is to limit axial rotation to the contralateral side. The transverse ligament also protects the
atlantoaxial joint from a rotatory dislocation. Fielding
et al. [9] described that with the intact transverse ligament, a complete bilateral rotational AA dislocation can
occur if 65° or more is reached. With transverse ligament disruption dislocation can occur at 45° of rotation
already. Total lateral displacement of more than 6.9 mm
of the lateral masses of C1 over the C2 facets, as measured on the cadaver tests, determines disruption or
avulsion of the transverse ligament [29].
2.5 For Practical Purposes We Can Summarize
The motion of AO-AA joint complex is always coupled.
UCS is responsible for 60% of rotation and 40% flexion
and extension of the whole cervical spine. Atlas has the
widest range of motion of any vertebra in the spine. It is
almost freely floating in between the occiput and C2
buffering the axial loads coming from head to spine.
The AO joint mainly provides flexion and extension
in the range of 20°, lateral bending is possible up to 10°.
Negligible rotation is possible; however, translation of
more than 1 mm is considered as pathological. The joint
distraction measured on CT should not exceed 2 mm.
The AA joint is responsible for 90% of axial rotation of the UCS complex with the average range of
rotational motion to one side of 40°. Flexion-extension
is possible at an average of 20° and the lateral bending
can reach up to 10°.
Whatever parameter measured beyond the physiological limits has to be considered as mechanical instability. Performing complex reconstruction of the UCS
the load distribution typical for this spine region has to
be respected and the non-affected segments spared to
preserve as much movement as possible.
References
1. Alund, M., Larsson, S.E.: Three-dimensional analysis of
neck motion. A clinical method. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 15,
87–91 (1990)
2. Bono, C.M., Vaccaro, A.R., Fehlings, M., et al.: Measurement
techniques for upper cervical spine injuries: consensus statement of the Spine Trauma Study Group. Spine (Phila Pa
1976) 32, 593–600 (2007)
3. Dvorak, J., Froehlich, D., Penning, L., et al.: Functional
radiographic diagnosis of the cervical spine: flexion/extension. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13, 748–755 (1988)
4. Dvorak, J., Hayek, J., Zehnder, R.: CT-functional diagnostics
of the rotatory instability of the upper cervical spine. Part 2.
An evaluation on healthy adults and patients with suspected
instability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 12, 726–731 (1987)
5. Dvorak, J., Panjabi, M.M.: Functional anatomy of the alar
ligaments. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 12, 183–189 (1987)
6. Dvorak, J., Panjabi, M., Gerber, M., et al.: CT-functional
diagnostics of the rotatory instability of upper cervical spine.
1. An experimental study on cadavers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
12, 197–205 (1987)
7. Dvorak, J., Panjabi, M.M., Novotny, J.E., et al.: In vivo flexion/extension of the cervical spine. J Orthop Res 9, 824–834
(1991)
8. Dvorak, J., Schneider, E., Saldinger, P., et al.: Biomechanics
of the craniocervical region: the alar and transverse ligaments. J Orthop Res 6, 452–461 (1988)
9. Fielding, J.W., Cochran, G.B., Lawsing 3rd, J.F., et al.: Tears
of the transverse ligament of the atlas. A clinical and
biomechanical study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 56, 1683–1691
(1974)
10. Goel, V.K., Clark, C.R., Gallaes, K., et al.: Moment-rotation
relationships of the ligamentous occipito-atlanto-axial complex. J Biomech 21, 673–680 (1988)
11. Harris Jr., J.H., Carson, G.C., Wagner, L.K.: Radiologic
diagnosis of traumatic occipitovertebral dissociation:
1. Normal occipitovertebral relationships on lateral radiographs of supine subjects. AJR Am J Roentgenol 162, 881–
886 (1994)
12. Harris Jr., J.H., Carson, G.C., Wagner, L.K., et al.: Radiologic
diagnosis of traumatic occipitovertebral dissociation:
2. Comparison of three methods of detecting occipitovertebral relationships on lateral radiographs of supine subjects.
AJR Am J Roentgenol 162, 887–892 (1994)
13. Hecker, P.: Appareil ligamenteux occipito-atloidoaxoidien:
étude d’anatomie comparée. Arch Anat Hist Embryol 2,
57–95 (1923)
14. Jeszenszky, D., Fekete, T.F., Melcher, R., et al.: C2 prosthesis: anterior upper cervical fixation device to reconstruct the
second cervical vertebra. Eur Spine J 16, 1695–1700 (2007)
15. Lang, J.: The cranio-cervical junction – Anatomy. In: Voth,
D., Glees, P. (eds.) Diseases in the cranio-cervical junction.
Anatomical and pathological aspects and detailed clinical
accounts, pp. 27–61. Gruyter, Berlin, New York (1987)
16. Lin, R.M., Tsai, K.H., Chu, L.P., et al.: Characteristics of
sagittal vertebral alignment in flexion determined by
dynamic radiographs of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa
1976) 26, 256–261 (2001)
17. Monckeberg, J.E., Tome, C.V., Matias, A., et al.: CT scan
study of atlantoaxial rotatory mobility in asymptomatic adult
subjects: a basis for better understanding C1-C2 rotatory
fixation and subluxation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34,
1292–1295 (2009)
18. Oda, T., Panjabi, M.M., Crisco 3rd, J.J., et al.: Role of tectorial membrane in the stability of the upper cervical spine.
Clin Biomech 7, 201–207 (1992)
19. Pang, D., Nemzek, W.R., Zovickian, J.: Atlanto-occipital dislocation: part 1 – normal occipital condyle-C1 interval in 89
children. Neurosurgery 61, 514–521 (2007). discussion 521

22
2 Biomechanical Remarks
20. Pang, D., Nemzek, W.R., Zovickian, J.: Atlanto-occipital
dislocation – part 2: The clinical use of (occipital) condyleC1 interval, comparison with other diagnostic methods, and
the manifestation, management, and outcome of atlantooccipital dislocation in children. Neurosurgery 61, 995–1015
(2007). discussion 1015
21. Panjabi, M.M., Duranceau, J., Goel, V., et al.: Cervical
human vertebrae. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy
of the middle and lower regions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16,
861–869 (1991)
22. Panjabi, M., Dvorak, J., Crisco 3rd, J.J., et al.: Effects of alar
ligament transection on upper cervical spine rotation. J
Orthop Res 9, 584–593 (1991)
23. Panjabi, M., Dvorak, J., Duranceau, J., et al.: Threedimensional movements of the upper cervical spine. Spine
(Phila Pa 1976) 13, 726–730 (1988)
24. Panjabi, M.M., Yue, J.J., Dvorak, J., et al.: Cervical spine
kinematics and clinical instability. In: Clark, C.R., Benzel,
E.C., Currier, B.L., et al. (eds.) The cervical spine, vol. 4, pp.
55–78. Lippincott, Philadelphia (2005)
25. Pearcy, M.J., Whittle, M.W.: Movements of the lumbar spine
measured by three-dimensional X-ray analysis. J Biomed
Eng 4, 107–112 (1982)
26. Penning, L.: Normal movements of the cervical spine. AJR
Am J Roentgenol 130, 317–326 (1978)
27. Penning, L., Wilmink, J.T.: Rotation of the cervical spine.
A CT study in normal subjects. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
12, 732–738 (1987)
28. Powers, B., Miller, M.D., Kramer, R.S., et al.: Traumatic
anterior atlanto-occipital dislocation. Neurosurgery 4, 12–17
(1979)
29. Spence Jr., K.F., Decker, S., Sell, K.W.: Bursting atlantal
fracture associated with rupture of the transverse ligament. J
Bone Joint Surg Am 52, 543–549 (1970)
30. Steinmetz, M.P., Mroz, T.E., Benzel, E.C.: Craniovertebral
junction: biomechanical considerations. Neurosurgery 66,
A7–A12 (2010)
31. Tubbs, R.S., Kelly, D.R., Humphrey, E.R., et al.: The tectorial membrane: anatomical, biomechanical, and histological
analysis. Clin Anat 20, 382–386 (2007)
32. Vishteh, A.G., Crawford, N.R., Melton, M.S., et al.: Stability
of the craniovertebral junction after unilateral occipital condyle resection: a biomechanical study. J Neurosurg 90,
91–98 (1999)
33. Werne, S.: Studies in spontaneous atlas dislocation. Acta
Orthop Scand Suppl 23, 1–150 (1957)
34. White, A.P.M.: Kinematics of the spine. Lippincott,
Philadelphia (1990)
35. White, A.A., Panjabi, M.M.: Clinical biomechanics of the
spine. Lippincott, Philadelphia (1990)
36. Wiesel, S., Kraus, D., Rothman, R.H.: Atlanto-occipital
hypermobility. Orthop Clin North Am 9, 969–972 (1978)
37. Wiesel, S.W., Rothman, R.H.: Occipitoatlantal hypermobility. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 4, 187–191 (1979)

Special Radiology
O. Choutka and P. Suchomel
3
The anatomy and pathology of the craniovertebral junction (CVJ) may be complex but can be readily visualized by a variety of radiological means. The primary
modalities include simple plain radiographs, computer
tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI). Each clinical scenario warrants a different
imaging modality or, more commonly, a combination
of multiple modalities. This chapter describes these
imaging modalities as they pertain to the CVJ. Specific
pathologies are discussed in separate chapters.
Historically, plain films have been the radiographic
gold standard for assessment of the spine in general and
form an essential part of spinal evaluation today, more
than 100 years since Wilhelm Roentgen shared the firstever radiograph of his wife’s hand in 1895 [23]. Bony
and some soft tissue abnormalities are well visualized on
plain films. Lateral cervical radiographs are the most
commonly used images in acute evaluation of the cervical spine. For example, they are used while patient is still
on the stretcher and further determine the way patient can
be handled through their traumatic work up. This is even
more important for the unconscious patient. The most
commonly missed traumatic injuries are at the lower end
of the cervical spine [44] and different projections such
as swimmer’s (“flying angel”) view have been designed
to enhance the visibility of the cervicothoracic junction.
Similarly, multiple views exist to carefully delineate CVJ.
O. Choutka
Department of Neurosurgery,
University of Cincinnati College of Medicine,
231 Albert Sabin Way, PO Box 670515,
Cincinnati, OH 45267-0515, USA
P. Suchomel
Department of Neurosurgery,
Neurocenter, Regional Hospital Liberec,
Husova St. 10, 46063 Liberec, Czech Republic
Lateral projection allows for a good assessment of the
alignment of the bony components of the spine and also
sagittal balance when performed upright. Any abnormality detected on bony spinal canal (fracture, subluxation)
necessitates further examination to determine its cause.
Prevertebral soft tissue swelling can point one to
the area of injury as it often indicates a presence of a
hematoma secondary to a fracture. Anteroposterior
view is commonly obliterated by the jaw; so, openmouth view films are particularly useful in assessing
odontoid pathology as well as the integrity of the atlantoaxial and atlanto-occipital relationships.
Allesandro Vallebona proposed to represent a single
slice of a body part on a radiograph, the so-called
tomography, a technique that remained the pillar of
radiology until the late 1970s [32]. However, the availability of computers and transverse axial scanning
resulted in the development of CT by Godfrey
Hounsfield and Allan McLeod Cormack [36]. Since
then, multi-slice CT has revolutionized cross-sectional
imaging with scanning time down to a single breath
hold today. Isotropic voxels allow for two-dimensional
reformatting and thus production of high quality threedimensional images that are particularly useful when
assessing complex bony abnormalities of the CVJ.
However, the disadvantage of CT is increased radiation dose to patients with its ever more prevalent
sequelae, particularly in pediatric population [4].
Although myelography with CT allows for excellent
neural structure delineation and skeletal correlation, it
has been largely replaced by MRI technology credited to
Paul Lauterbur and Sir Peter Mansfield who were awarded
Nobel Prize in 2003, albeit some controversy surrounds
the award [40]. MRI is excellent in evaluation of neural,
ligamentous, and disk structures. Sagittal images become
particularly useful in CVJ, evaluation of alignment, and
assessment of various craniometric lines and angles.
P. Suchomel and O. Choutka, Reconstruction of Upper Cervical Spine and Craniovertebral Junction,
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-13158-5_3, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011
23

24
ab
3 Special Radiology
Upright films (plain radiography or even MRI) can
be a useful adjunct to evaluation of any spinal pathology that may change under loading conditions of the
erect human body [13, 47].
Under appropriate supervision, plain films, CT, and
MRI can be obtained in dynamic positions when concern for instability exists, thus providing further information about soft tissue and bony dynamics of the
CVJ. Multiple parameters based on static and dynamic
films have been developed to grade clinical status or
instability of the CVJ.
Vascular anatomy of the CVJ can be evaluated by
multiple modalities. Angiography later improved by
digitalized subtraction was the standard since its development by Egas Moniz in 1927 [43]. However, with CT
and MR angiography available, only very specific situations [51] would require the patient to be subjected to the
potential risks of conventional angiography nowadays.
3.1 Radiographic Data Analysis
Advances in neuroimaging allow for excellent
visualization of the CVJ and UCS. Therefore, an
effective diagnostic approach is necessary to prevent
unnecessary secondary neurological sequelae (e.g.,
spinal cord injury from a missed traumatic atlantooccipital dislocation). Plain radiography remains the
mainstay of early evaluation of the cervical spine in
majority of hospitals. One has to be aware that lateral
cervical spine films are centered on the C3 vertebra;
therefore, the visualization of CVJ may be skewed by
the oblique nature of the atlanto-occipital joints relative to the x-ray beams. Coned down views of the
UCS or lateral skull films can clarify this relationship
[8]. Although plain films have been surpassed by the
quality of other modalities in this region, there are
multiple indirect signs on plain films, pointing to
craniocervical junction abnormalities. These include
prevertebral soft tissue swelling, lack of override of
mastoid processes of the odontoid tip, and disruption
of UCS laminae [31]. Once seen, further evaluation
is warranted.
Over the years, numerous craniometric parameters
(lines, planes, angles, and relationships) have been
described and tested in practice to assess radiographic
alignment of the structures of CVJ (Table 3.1). Specific
osseous anatomical landmarks need to be visualized
on imaging to derive those lines/angles to be able to
detect and quantify an abnormality. Those include
nasion, tuberculum sellae, basion (anterior margin of
FM), opisthion (posterior margin of FM), posterior
hard palate edge, anterior and posterior arches of atlas,
odontoid process, and C2 vertebral body (Fig. 3.1).
3.1.1 Basal/Clival Parameters
The Welcher basal angle can be measured on plain
films or mid-sagittal CT or MRI images and is formed
by the nasion-tuberculum and tuberculum basion
lines [45]. It is a modification to the angle of Landzert,
which represents an angle between planum sphenoidale and the clivus. Welcher basal angle averages
132° and should always be less than 140° [10].
Lanzert’s angle changes during fetal development
and then averages 113.9° in adults [16, 55]. Both
angles abnormally increase when the skull base is flat
as in platybasia with or without basilar impression
(Fig. 3.2).
Fig. 3.1 Relevant anatomical landmarks needed to be visualized
for analysis of CVJ craniometric parameters: 1 nasion, 2 tuberculum sella, 3 basion (anterior margin of FM), 4 opisthion
(posterior margin of FM), 5 posterior hard palate edge, 6 anterior
and 7 posterior arches of atlas, 8 odontoid process, and 9 C2
vertebral body. (a) lateral plain radiogram. (b) CT in sagittal
plane. (c) MRI in sagittal plane

3.1 Radiographic Data Analysis
Table 3.1 Craniometric parameters
Line/angle Film Anatomic landmarks/relationship Normal value Pathology
Wackenheim line L Posterior surface of clivus
Chamberlain line L Hard palate to opisthion
McRae line (FM line) L Basion to opisthion and dens Dens below line BI
McGregor line L Hard palate to basiocciput
Ranawat line/criterion L Distance in mid-dens coronal
Redlund-Johnell and
Pettersson distance
Fischgold and Metzger AP On AP films. Line between
Klaus posterior fossa height
index
Welcher basal angle L Nasion to tuberculum line
Clivus-canal angle L Wackenheim line
Cervico-medullary angle L Measured on MRI, anterior
Basion-dental interval (BDI) L Distance of basion to dens tip <12 mm AOD
Basion-axial interval (BAI) L Perpendicular distance from
Atlanto-dental interval (ADI) L Distance dens to anterior
Posterior ADI (PADI) L Distance dens to posterior
Space available for cord <14 mm always
Atlanto-occipital joint axis
angle
Condyle-C1 interval
(occipito-atlantal joint gap)
Clark Station L Atlantoaxial vertical relationship.
L McGregor line to midpoint
L Perpendicular distance between
AP On AP films. Angle between
AP or L Distance C1 lateral mass
and dens
and dens
and dens
plane, between transverse axis
of atlas and midpoint of C2 pedicle
of inferior C2 endplate
the mastoid tips and dens
dens and tuberculum/internal
occipital protuberance line
and tuberculum to basion line
and posterior axial line
medullary line and cervical
spinal cord line
basion to posterior axial line
C1 arch
C1 arch
two lines parallel to AO joints
and occipital condyle
Anterior atlas ring relative to axis
height divided into equal vertical
thirds
Tangent to the dens and
behind it, may cross its
posterior third
Dens protrudes <5 mm
above it
Dens protrudes <7 mm
above it
>15 mm in males
>13 mm in females
>34 mm in males BI
>29 mm in females
Dens below the line BI
>30 mm BI
<140° Platybasia
150°–180° BI
>135° BI
<12 mm AOD
<3 mm in adults AAI
<5 mm in children
>18 mm no neurology Neurological
compromised
124°–127° Condylar
<2 mm adults AOD
<5 mm children
Ring of atlas opposite the
upper third of axis
BI
BI
BI
BI
Platybasia
Platybasia
Cranial
settling
compromise
in AAI
hypoplasia
BI
25

26
Fig. 3.2 Welcher basal angle (nasion-tuberculum-basion angle). (a) Normal angle as measured on plain lateral radiograph.
(b) platybasia measured on 3D CT sagittal reconstruction
3 Special Radiology
Fig. 3.3 The Wackenheim clivus line in a case of atlas settling
and odontoid process slight invagination
3.1.2 Craniocervical Parameters
The Wackenheim clivus line is drawn along the posterior surface of clivus and extended inferiorly [52]
(Fig. 3.3). The line delineates the relationship between
clivus and the odontoid process. In a normal CVJ alignment, the clivus baseline falls behind the odontoid tip
Fig. 3.4 Clivus-canal (craniovertebral) angle
or may cross the posterior third. Any greater degree
of odontoid transaction is seen in basilar invagination
or AAD. The angle formed by Wackenheim line and
posterior axial line represents the clivus-canal (craniovertebral) angle (Fig. 3.4). This angle varies between
150° and 180° depending on flexion/extension position
and may represent spinal cord compression in situations
of it being less than 150° [50]. The clivus-canal angle

3.1 Radiographic Data Analysis
McGregor
Chamberlain
McRae
27
is important in platybasia/basilar impression description as it is not unusual for this angle to become rather
acute (even 90°) sometimes without abnormal violation
of the above described Wackenheim clivus baseline.
Due to common difficulties with visualization of bony
structures required for the measurement of clivus-canal
angle, particularly after decompressive procedures and
the indirect nature of bony parameters attempting to
represent neurological compromise, Bundschuh et al.
described cervico-medullary angle (CMA) in order to
directly demonstrate the degree of brainstem and spinal
cord compression in basilar invagination or cranial settling in rheumatoid patients [5]. They compared those
values with 50 normal patients and concluded that all
patients with CMA of less than 135° had evidence of
brainstem compression, cervical myelopathy, or C2
nerve root pain. The angle is measured at the intersection of lines drawn parallel to ventral surfaces of the
medulla and upper cervical cord on MRI (Fig. 3.5).
Multiple publications since then have correlated the
CMA with clinical syndrome as well as therapeutic
indications and outcomes [39, 54]. However, the largest
study defining the normal values of CMA found it to be
approximately 158° (139°–175° range) when evaluating
200 patients’ MRI without craniovertebral anomalies
[53]. Furthermore, the authors also found the CMA to
have an excellent inter- and intra-observer reliability.
Similar to Wackenheim clivus baseline, most of the
original craniometric lines for detection of basilar
invagination or cranial settling in rheumatoid patients
were originally based on plain radiographic assessment.
The use of CT makes those measurements easier as bony
structures can be easily visualized in the midsagittal
plane. Historically, the most useful parameters measured
on lateral films include Chamberlain, McGregor, and
McRae’s lines (Fig. 3.6) as well as the Klaus index. Other
criteria are listed in Table 3.1. (Clark station, RedlundJohnell and Pettersson, Ranawat, Fischgold and
Metzger). All of these are less applicable to traumatic
situations where distraction, rather than settling, occurs.
Basilar invagination or impression can be diagnosed
on plain radiographs when the odontoid tip protrudes
at least 2 mm above the Chamberlain line: hard palate
to opisthion line [6]; 4.5 mm above the McGregor line:
posterosuperior aspect of the hard palate to the most
caudal point on the mid-occipital curve line [28]; or
any distance above the McRae line: basion to opisthion
[29] (Fig. 3.6). Redlund-Johnell criterion represents the
distance between McGregor line and inferior C2 vertebral body measured through its midpoint [38]. Distance
of less than 34 mm in males or 29 mm in females is
indicative of basilar invagination. Similarly, according
to the Ranawat criterion, the distance between the center of the second cervical pedicle and the transverse
axis of atlas along the odontoid process needs to be less
than 15 mm in males and 13 mm in females to indicate
invagination [37]. On AP transoral plain film, one can
draw a line connecting the mastoid tips (FischgoldMetzger line) and if the odontoid protrudes above it, it
again indicates basilar invagination [3, 30]. Using any
criterion that requires exact odontoid process visualization in rheumatoid patients may be difficult. Therefore,
criteria that utilized other landmarks than the odontoid
process were developed as mentioned above. Indeed,
the hard palate was seen in 93% of patients, followed
Fig. 3.5 Cervicomedullary angle as measured on MRI
Fig. 3.6 Schematic drawing of basal lines
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
