Abstract
Purpose
A clivus screw and plate was invented and proved to strengthen the stability of the craniovertebral junction (CVJ). However, it is unclear whether the clivus screw and plate could be placed onto the CVJ by transoral approach. Therefore, the present study aims to evaluate the feasibility of clivus screw and plate placement by transoral approach and investigate its relative anatomic parameters.
Methods
A total of 80 normal adults (40 males/40 females) with an average age of 60.4 ± 11.6 years old were enrolled in this study. All parameters were measured in a supposed maximums mouth-opening status on computed tomography images, where the vertex of lower incisor was defined as Point A. The vertical intersection from Point A to extracranial clivus was defined as Point B, and its distance to the bottom of clivus was measured as B length. Point B was considered as ideal screw entry point. All the cases were divided into three types based on the location of Point B: above the top portion (Type 1), between the top and bottom portion (Type 2), and below the bottom portion (Type 3) of extracranial clivus. The B Length was defined as a minus value if the case belonged to Type 3. The anterior skull base angle, the angles between tangent of extracranial clivus and the lines from Point A to different parts of clivus, and distances between Point A and clivus and C1-3 vertebra were also measured.
Results
One in eighty cases (1.2%) belonged to Type 1 with a B Length of 32.12 mm. Most cases (61.3%) were Type 2 with a B Length of 8.7 mm, while Type 3’s was − 9.7 mm occupying for 37.5%. Significant statistic differences were found in anterior skull base angle between these three types (128.9°, 122.7° and 118.5° for Type 1, 2 and 3, respectively). The distances from Point A to the top and bottom portion of the clivus and the pharyngeal tubercle were 97.5, 96.0 and 96.8 mm, respectively. The angles between the tangent of the clivus and the lines from Point A to the above three structures were 75.7°, 92.3° and 84.0°, respectively. The distances from Point A to the middle point of anterior margin of C1 anterior tubercle, C2 vertebra and C3 vertebra were 79.1, 73.4 and 61.5 mm, respectively.
Conclusion
The clivus screw and plate placement could be accomplished with optimal screw angle by transoral approach in most of patients. Mandibular splitting would be needed in patients with greater anterior skull angle.
Graphic abstract
These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Lee SC, Chen JF, Lee ST (2004) Complications of fixation to the occiput-anatomical and design implications. Br J Neurosurg 18:590–597
Garrido BJ, Sasso RC (2012) Occipitocervical fusion. Orthop Clin North Am 43:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2011.08.009
Menezes AH (2012) Craniocervical fusions in children. J Neurosurg Pediatr 9:573–585. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.2.PEDS11371
Fard SA, Patel AS, Avila MJ, Sattarov KV, Walter CM, Skoch J, Baaj AA (2015) Anatomic considerations of the anterior upper cervical spine during decompression and instrumentation: a cadaveric based study. J Clin Neurosci 22:1810–1815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2015.05.012
Suchomel P, Buchvald P, Barsa P, Froehlich R, Choutka O, Krejzar Z, Sourkova P, Endrych L, Dzan L (2007) Single-stage total C-2 intralesional spondylectomy for chordoma with three-column reconstruction. Technical note. J Neurosurg Spine 6:611–618. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2007.6.6.17
Guppy KH, Chakrabarti I, Isaacs RS, Jun JH (2013) En bloc resection of a multilevel high-cervical chordoma involving C-2: new operative modalities: technical note. J Neurosurg Spine 19:232–242. https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.5.SPINE121039
Ji W, Wang XY, Xu HZ, Yang XD, Chi YL, Yang JS, Yan SF, Zheng JW, Chen ZX (2012) The anatomic study of clival screw fixation for the craniovertebral region. Eur Spine J 21:1483–1491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2151-0
Ji W, Kong GG, Zheng MH, Wang XY, Chen JT, Zhu QA (2015) Computed tomographic morphometric analysis of pediatric clival screw placement at the craniovertebral junction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:E259–E265. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000749
Ji W, Tong J, Huang Z, Zheng M, Wu X, Chen J, Zhu Q (2015) A clivus plate fixation for reconstruction of ventral defect of the craniovertebral junction: a novel fixation device for craniovertebral instability. Eur Spine J 24:1658–1665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4025-8
Ji W, Tong J, Huang Z, Zheng M, Wu X, Chen J, Zhu Q (2016) Stabilization of the craniovertebral junction with clivus plate constructs: biomechanical comparison with conventional technique. World Neurosurg 94:42–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.06.104
Dlouhy BJ, Dahdaleh NS, Menezes AH (2015) Evolution of transoral approaches, endoscopic endonasal approaches, and reduction strategies for treatment of craniovertebral junction pathology: a treatment algorithm update. Neurosurg Focus 38:E8. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.1.FOCUS14837
Perrini P, Benedetto N, Di Lorenzo N (2014) Transoral approach to extradural non-neoplastic lesions of the craniovertebral junction. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 156:1231–1236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-014-2057-1
Li X, Jia C, Zhang Z (2017) The normal range of maximum mouth opening and its correlation with height or weight in the young adult Chinese population. J Dent Sci 12:56–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2016.09.002
Burke K, Benet A, Aghi MK, El-Sayed I (2014) Impact of platybasia and anatomic variance on surgical approaches to the craniovertebral junction. Laryngoscope 124:1760–1766. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.24639
Wang Z, Xia H, Wu Z, Ai F, Xu J, Yin Q (2014) Detailed anatomy for the transoral approach to the craniovertebral junction: an exposure and safety study. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 75:133–139. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1363170
Drommer RB (1986) The history of the “Le Fort I osteotomy”. J Maxillofac Surg 14:119–122
Martin H, Tollefsen HR, Gerold FP (1961) Median labiomandibular glossotomy. Trotter’s median (anterior) translingual pharyngotomy. Am J Surg 102:753–759
Morales-Valero SF, Serchi E, Zoli M, Mazzatenta D, Van Gompel JJ (2015) Endoscopic endonasal approach for craniovertebral junction pathology: a review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus 38:E15. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.1.FOCUS14831
Visocchi M, Iacopino DG, Signorelli F, Olivi A, Maugeri R (2018) Walk the line. The surgical highways to the craniovertebral junction in endoscopic approaches: a historical perspective. World Neurosurg 110:544–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.06.125
Karam YR, Menezes AH, Traynelis VC (2010) Posterolateral approaches to the craniovertebral junction. Neurosurgery 66:135–140. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000365828.03949.D0
Singh H, Harrop J, Schiffmacher P, Rosen M, Evans J (2010) Ventral surgical approaches to craniovertebral junction chordomas. Neurosurgery 66:96–103. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000365855.12257.D1
Ji W, Liu X, Huang W, Huang Z, Chen J, Zhu Q, Wu Z (2016) Clival screw placement in patient with atlas assimilation: a CT-based feasibility study. Sci Rep 6:31648. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep31648
Smoker WR (1994) Craniovertebral junction: normal anatomy, craniometry, and congenital anomalies. Radiographics 14:255–277. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.14.2.8190952
Zawawi KH, Al-Badawi EA, Lobo SL, Melis M, Mehta NR (2003) An index for the measurement of normal maximum mouth opening. J Can Dent Assoc 69:737–741
Yao K, Lin C, Hung C (2009) Maximum mouth opening of ethnic Chinese in Taiwan. J Dent Sci 4:40–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1991-7902(09)60007-6
Ying QV, Bacic J, Abramowicz S, Sonis A (2013) Cross sectional: normal maximal incisal opening and associations with physical variables in children. Pediatr Dent 35:61–66
Acknowledgements
This study was sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81702192), the Outstanding Youths Development Scheme of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, China (No. 2017J008) and the President Foundation of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, China (No. 2016C021).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no personal, financial, or institutional interest and ethical/legal conflicts involved in this article. The Manuscript submitted does not contain information about medical device(s)/drug(s).
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lin, J., Kong, G., Xu, X. et al. Clival screw and plate fixation by the transoral approach for the craniovertebral junction: a CT-based feasibility study. Eur Spine J 28, 2342–2351 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06039-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06039-5