Omar Tanweer

Outcome comparison of atlantoaxial fusion with transarticular screws and screw-rod constructs: meta-analysis and review of literature.

Study Design: Literature review and meta-analysis. Objective: To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients treated with transarticular screws (TASs) and screw-rod constructs (SRCs) for posterior atlantoaxial fusion. Background: Modern techniques for C1–C2 fusions include Magerl and Seeman’s TAS and SRC using C1 lateral mass screws and C2 pars/pedicle screws as described by Goel and Laheri and later modified by Harms and Melcher. Materials and Methods: Online databases were searched for English-language articles between 1986 and April 2011 describing posterior atlantoaxial instrumentation with C1–C2 TAS or SRC. Forty-five studies (2073 patients) treated with TAS and 24 studies (1073 patients) treated with SRC fulfilled inclusion criteria. Standard and formal meta-analysis techniques were used to compare the outcomes. Results: All studies provided class III evidence. There were no differences in 30-day mortality (0.8% vs. 0.6%) or neurological injury (0.2% vs. 0%). There was a higher incidence of vertebral artery injury [4.1% (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.8%–5.4%) vs. 2.0% (95% CI, 1.1%–3.4%); P=0.02] and malpositioned screws [7.1% (95% CI, 5.7%–8.8%) vs. 2.4% (95% CI, 1.1%–4.1%); P<0.001] and a slightly lower rate of fusion with the TAS technique [97.5% (95% CI, 95.9%–98.5%) vs. 94.6% (95% CI, 92.6%–96.1%); P<0.001]. Conclusions: TAS and SRC are safe and effective treatment options for C1–C2 instability but require a thorough knowledge of atlantoaxial anatomy for successful insertion of screws. Slightly higher rates of fusion and less risk of injury to the vertebral artery during screw placement were observed with the SRC technique. However, differences in graft material and techniques were noted. Prospective, randomized studies with validated radiographic and clinical outcome metrics are necessary for proper comparison of these techniques.

The Prevalence of the Ponticulus Posticus (Arcuate Foramen) and Its Importance in the Goel-Harms Procedure: Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE We reviewed published radiographic and cadaver series describing the incidence of the anatomical anomaly ponticulus posticus and discuss its relevance to C1 lateral mass screw (C1LMS) insertion. METHODS Online databases were searched for English-language articles describing the presence of ponticulus posticus in cadaver and radiographic studies. Forty-four reports describing 21,789 patients (n = 15,542) or bony/cadaver specimens (n = 6247) fulfilled inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis techniques were applied to estimate the prevalence of this anomaly. RESULTS The overall prevalence of ponticulus posticus was 16.7%. The anomaly was identified in 18.8% of cadaver, 17.2% of computed tomographic, and 16.6% on radiographic studies. The anomaly composed a complete foramen in 9.3% of patients and was partial/incomplete in 8.7%. It was present bilaterally in 5.4% of cases and unilateral in 7.6%. There was no significant difference in prevalence between males (15.8%) and females (14.6%). Review of that literature demonstrated a dramatic increase in the number of patients treated with C1LMS through the posterior arch since first described in 2002, necessitating recognition of this anomaly when performing the Goel-Harms procedure. CONCLUSION The atlantal anomaly ponticulus posticus is not rare, occurring in 16.7% of patients in radiographic and cadaver studies. This anomaly may give the false impression that the posterior arch of the atlas is of adequate size to accommodate a C1LMS and may lead to inadvertent vertebral artery injury. Careful assessment via preoperative multiplanar computed tomographic imaging should be performed before consideration of C1LMS implantation.

Atlantoaxial Fusion with Screw-Rod Constructs: Meta-Analysis and Review of Literature

OBJECTIVE To review published series describing C1-2 posterior instrumented fusions and summarize clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients treated with screw-rod constructs (SRC). METHODS Online databases were searched for English-language articles published between 1991 and April 2011 describing posterior atlantoaxial instrumentation with C1-2 SRC. There were 24 studies including 1073 patients treated with SRC that fulfilled inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis techniques were used to compare outcomes. RESULTS All studies provided class III evidence. The 30-day perioperative mortality rate was 0.6%, and neurologic injury occurred in two patients with vertebral artery injury (VAI) from screw malpositions (0.2%). The incidence of clinically significant screw malpositions was 2.4% (confidence interval [CI], 1.1%-4.1%), the incidence of VAI was 2.0% (CI, 1.1%-3.4%), and the rate of fusion with the SRC technique was 97.5% (CI, 95.9%-98.5%). CONCLUSIONS SRC is a safe and effective treatment option for C1-2 instability. The low but nonzero incidence of screw malposition and VAI emphasizes the necessity of having a thorough knowledge of atlantoaxial anatomy for successful insertion of screws.

Anterior choroidal artery patency and clinical follow-up after coverage with the pipeline embolization device

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Endoluminal reconstruction with the Pipeline Embolization Device is an effective treatment option for select intracranial aneurysms. However, concerns for the patency of eloquent branch arteries covered by the Pipeline Embolization Device have been raised. We aimed to examine the patency of the anterior choroidal artery and clinical sequelae after ICA aneurysm treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively analyzed all patients among our first 157 patients with ICA aneurysms treated by the Pipeline Embolization Device who required placement of at least 1 device across the ostium of the anterior choroidal artery. The primary outcome measure was angiographic patency of the anterior choroidal artery at last follow-up. Age, sex, type of aneurysm, neurologic examination data, number of Pipeline Embolization Devices used, relationship of the anterior choroidal artery to the aneurysm, and completeness of aneurysm occlusion on follow-up angiograms were also analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-nine aneurysms requiring placement of at least 1 Pipeline Embolization Device (median = 1, range = 1–3) across the anterior choroidal artery ostium were identified. At angiographic follow-up (mean = 15.1 months; range = 12–39 months), the anterior choroidal artery remained patent, with antegrade flow in 28/29 aneurysms (96.5%), while 24/29 (82.7%) of the target aneurysms were angiographically occluded by 1-year follow-up angiography. Anterior choroidal artery occlusion, with retrograde reconstitution of the vessel, was noted in a single case. A significant correlation between the origin of the anterior choroidal artery from the aneurysm dome and failure of the aneurysms to occlude following treatment was found. CONCLUSIONS: After placement of 36 Pipeline Embolization Devices across 29 anterior choroidal arteries (median = 1 device, range = 1–3 devices), 1 of 29 anterior choroidal arteries was found occluded on angiographic follow-up. The vessel occlusion did not result in persistent clinical sequelae. Coverage of the anterior choroidal artery origin with the Pipeline Embolization Device, hence, may be considered reasonably safe when deemed necessary for aneurysm treatment.

Comparison of safety and stability of C-2 pars and pedicle screws for atlantoaxial fusion: meta-analysis and review of the literature

OBJECT Some centers report a lower incidence of vertebral artery (VA) injury with C-2 pars screws compared with pedicle screws without sacrificing construct stability, despite biomechanical studies suggesting greater load failures with C-2 pedicle screws. The authors reviewed published series describing C-2 pars and pedicle screw implantation and atlantoaxial fusions and compared the incidence of VA injury, screw malposition, and successful atlantoaxial fusion with each screw type. METHODS Online databases were searched for English-language articles between 1994 and April of 2011 describing the clinical and radiographic outcomes following posterior atlantoaxial fusion with C-1 lateral mass and either C-2 pars interarticularis or pedicle screws. Thirty-three studies describing 2975 C-2 pedicle screws and 11 studies describing 405 C-2 pars screws met inclusion criteria for the safety analysis. Seven studies describing 113 patients treated with C-2 pars screws and 20 studies describing 918 patients treated with C-2 pedicle screws met inclusion criteria for fusion analysis. Standard and formal meta-analysis techniques were used to compare outcomes. RESULTS All studies provided Class III evidence. Ten instances of VA injury occurred with C-2 pedicle screws (0.3%) and no VA injury occurred with pars screws. The point estimate of VA injury for C-2 pedicle screws was 1.09% (95% CI 0.73%-1.63%) and was similar to that of C-2 pars screws (1.48%, 95% CI 0.62%-3.52%). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of clinically significant screw malpositions (1.14% [95% CI 0.77%-1.69%) vs 1.69% [95% CI 0.73%-3.84%]). Radiographically identified screw malposition occurred in a higher proportion of C-2 pedicle screws compared with C-2 pars screws (6.0% [95% CI 3.7%-9.6%] vs 4.0% [95% CI 2.0%-7.6%], p < 0.0001). Pseudarthrosis occurred in a greater proportion of patients treated with C-2 pars screws (5 [4.4%] of 113) compared with those treated with C-2 pedicle screws (2 [0.22%] of 900). Point estimates with 95% confidence intervals show a slightly higher rate of successful atlantoaxial fusion in the pedicle screw cohort (97.8% [CI 96.0%-98.8%] vs 93.5% [CI 86.6%-97.0%]; p < 0.0001). Q-testing ruled out heterogeneity between the study groups. CONCLUSIONS With a thorough knowledge of axis anatomy, surgeons can place both C-2 pars and C-2 pedicle screws accurately with a small risk of VA injury or clinically significant malposition. There may be subtle trade-off of safety for rigidity when using axial pedicle instead of pars screws, and the decision to use either screw type must be made only after careful review of the preoperative CT imaging and must take into account the surgeons expertise and the particular demands of the clinical scenario in any given case.

A Comparative Review of the Hemodynamics and Pathogenesis of Cerebral and Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Lessons to Learn From Each Other

Objective Cerebral aneurysms (CAs) and abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are degenerative vascular pathologies that manifest as abnormal dilations of the arterial wall. They arise with different morphologies in different types of blood vessels under different hemodynamic conditions. Although treated as different pathologies, we examine common pathways in their hemodynamic pathogenesis in order to elucidate mechanisms of formation. Materials and Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed. Current concepts on pathogenesis and hemodynamics were collected and compared. Results CAs arise as saccular dilations on the cerebral arteries of the circle of Willis under high blood flow, high wall shear stress (WSS), and high wall shear stress gradient (WSSG) conditions. AAAs arise as fusiform dilations on the infrarenal aorta under low blood flow, low, oscillating WSS, and high WSSG conditions. While at opposite ends of the WSS spectrum, they share high WSSG, a critical factor in arterial remodeling. This alone may not be enough to initiate aneurysm formation, but may ignite a cascade of downstream events that leads to aneurysm development. Despite differences in morphology and the structure, CAs and AAAs share many histopathological and biomechanical characteristics. Endothelial cell damage, loss of elastin, and smooth muscle cell loss are universal findings in CAs and AAAs. Increased matrix metalloproteinases and other proteinases, reactive oxygen species, and inflammation also contribute to the pathogenesis of both aneurysms. Conclusion Our review revealed similar pathways in seemingly different pathologies. We also highlight the need for cross-disciplinary studies to aid in finding similarities between pathologies.

The utility of a multimaterial 3D printed model for surgical planning of complex deformity of the skull base and craniovertebral junction.

Utilizing advanced 3D printing techniques, a multimaterial model was created for the surgical planning of a complex deformity of the skull base and craniovertebral junction. The model contained bone anatomy as well as vasculature and the previously placed occipital cervical instrumentation. Careful evaluation allowed for a unique preoperative perspective of the craniovertebral deformity and instrumentation options. This patient-specific model was invaluable in choosing the most effective approach and correction strategy, which was not readily apparent from standard 2D imaging. Advanced 3D multimaterial printing provides a cost-effective method of presurgical planning, which can also be used for both patient and resident education.

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

Study Design: Literature review and meta-analysis. Objectives: To compare the incidence of screw malposition and vertebral artery injury (VAI) with transarticular screws (TAS) and C2 pedicle screws (C2PS) using meta-analysis techniques. Summary of Background Data: Posterior instrumentation for atlantoaxial fusions can be challenging and risky. Some centers report a higher incidence of VAI with the implantation of TAS compared with C2PS, whereas other data do not support this. Methods: Online databases were searched for English language articles between 1994 and April 2011 describing the clinical and radiographic outcomes after insertion of C2PS or TAS. Forty-one studies reporting on 3627 TAS and 33 studies describing 2979 C2PS met inclusion criteria for VAI or clinically significant misplacements (VAI, neurological deficits, or misplacements requiring surgical revision), and 36 studies reporting on 3280 TAS and 28 studies describing 2532 C2PS met inclusion criteria for radiographic misplacement outcomes. Results: All studies comprised class III evidence. VAI occurred in 26 of 3627 (0.72%) implanted TAS and in 10 of 2979 (0.34%) implanted C2PS (P=0.01). Clinically significant misplacements occurred in 67 TAS (1.84%) and in 10 C2PS (0.34%; P<0.0001). The point estimate of VAI for TAS was 1.68% [confidence interval (CI), 1.23%–2.29%] and was higher than C2PS (1.09%; CI, 0.73%–1.63%; P=0.01). The point estimate of clinically significant screw malposition for TAS was 2.33% (CI, 1.61%–3.37%) and was higher than that of C2PS (1.15%; CI, 0.77%–1.70%; P<0.001). Conclusions: With training, experience, and anatomic knowledge, both TAS and C2PS can be inserted accurately and safely. However, improper insertion and VAI can have catastrophic consequences. Our review identified a higher risk of VAI, neurological injury, and clinically significant malpositions with TAS compared with C2PS. These data provide preliminary support for the supposition that C2PS have a lower risk of morbidity.

Risks for hemorrhagic complications after placement of external ventricular drains with early chemical prophylaxis against venous thromboembolisms

OBJECT Patients undergoing placement of an external ventricular drain (EVD) are at increased risk for development of venous thromboembolisms (VTEs). Early chemical prophylaxis has been shown to decrease rates of embolism formation, but the risks for bleeding and the optimal time to initiate prophylaxis have not been clearly defined for this patient population. The authors evaluated the safety and risks for bleeding when chemical prophylaxis for VTEs was started within 24 hours of EVD placement. METHODS To compare rates of hemorrhage among patients who received prophylaxis within 24 hours and those who received it later than 24 hours after admission, the authors conducted an institutional review board-approved retrospective review. Patients were those who had had an EVD placed and postprocedural imaging conducted at Bellevue Hospital, New York, from January 2009 through April 2012. Data collected included demographics, diagnosis, coagulation panel results, time to VTE prophylaxis and imaging, and occurrence of VTEs. The EVD-associated hemorrhages were classified as Grade 0, no hemorrhage; Grade 1, petechial hyperdensity near the drain; Grade 2, hematoma of 1-15 ml; Grade 3, epidural or subdural hematoma greater than 15 ml; or Grade 4, intraventricular hemorrhage or hematoma requiring surgical intervention. RESULTS Among 99 patients, 111 EVDs had been placed. Low-dose unfractionated heparin had been given within 24 hours of admission (early prophylaxis) to 56 patients and later than 24 hours after admission (delayed prophylaxis) to 55 patients. There were no statistical differences across all grades (0-4) among those who received early prophylaxis (n = 45, 5, 5, 1, and 0, respectively) and those who received delayed prophylaxis (n = 46, 4, 1, 1, and 3, respectively) (p = 0.731). In the early prophylaxis group, 3 VTEs were discovered among 32 of 56 patients screened for clinically suspected VTEs. In the delayed prophylaxis group, 5 VTEs were discovered among 33 of 55 patients screened for clinically suspected VTEs (p = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS Hemorrhagic complications did not increase when chemical prophylaxis was started within 24 hours of admission. Also, the incidence of VTEs did not differ between patients in the early and delayed prophylaxis groups. Larger randomized controlled trials are probably needed to assess decreases in VTEs with earlier prophylaxis.

Impact of starting point and C2 nerve status on the safety and accuracy of C1 lateral mass screws: meta-analysis and review of the literature.

Study Design: Literature review and meta-analysis. Objective: To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients treated with C1 lateral mass screws (C1LMS), analyzing the impact of screw starting point and C2 nerve sectioning on malposition, vertebral artery injury (VAI), and C2 neuralgia and numbness. Background: Various starting points have been suggested for C1LMS insertion. Some advocate sectioning the C2 nerve root to ease placement. Methods: Online databases were searched for English language articles between 1994 and 2012 reporting on C1LMS. Forty-two studies describing 1471 patients instrumented with 2905 C1LMS met inclusion criteria. Three surgical techniques included posterior arch starting point and center of lateral mass with nerve root preservation or sacrifice. Results: All studies provided class III evidence. Three injuries to the vertebral artery occurred secondary to C1LMS insertion (0.1%) and 5 instances of clinically significant screw malpositions (0.2%). Postoperative imaging revealed 45 malpositioned screws (1.6%) without clinical consequences. Meta-analysis techniques demonstrated that sacrifice of the C2 nerve root caused greater postoperative numbness but less neuralgia and fewer screw malpositions. Similar rates of screw malposition and VAI arose with posterior arch screws and those starting below the arch with C2 nerve preservation, but the latter had greater numbness and pain. Conclusion: A thorough understanding of atlantoaxial anatomy and modern surgical techniques renders the insertion of C1LMS safe and accurate. The incidence of clinically significant malpositioned screws or VAI is <0.5%. Sacrifice of the C2 nerve root did result in fewer malpositioned screws. Numbness occurred in 11% of patients, an outcome that may be unacceptable to certain patient populations, but neuropathic pain was nearly absent with nerve sectioning. C2 nerve preservation and retraction for C1 screw placement may have higher incidence of neuropathic pain. Posterior arch screws are a viable option for patients with arches that are of adequate height.