PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 30, 2025Neurospine4 citationsOpen Access

Atlantoaxial Reconstruction: The Artful Evolution of Craniovertebral Junctional Spine Surgery

View Full Paper
SHSang Hoon HwangSRSeungjun RyuMKM. H. Kim

Key Points

  • C1-2 fusion techniques have significantly evolved to improve clinical outcomes and stability in surgery.
  • Through historical analysis, 61 relevant studies were reviewed, with 41 summarized and 20 systematically analyzed post-2000.
  • Advancements from autologous bone grafts to pedicle screw constructs have increased fusion rates and surgical success.
  • Interarticular fusion, alongside other techniques, enhances biological fusion conditions, leading to better results.

Abstract

The atlantoaxial (C1–2) junction is among the most technically demanding regions for cervical spine surgery owing to its complex osseoligamentous anatomy and proximity to critical neurovascular structures. Numerous posterior fixation constructs have been developed to optimize biomechanical rigidity and promote arthrodesis. Since Gallie’s introduction of posterior wiring with autologous bone grafts in 1939, evolving techniques have focused on enhancing fusion rates while minimizing risk to adjacent structures. This paper outlines the historical evolution of C1–2 posterior instrumentation, current fixation strategies, bone fusion techniques, and reduction methods. A systematic literature search identified 61 relevant studies on C1–2 fusion. Additional references were manually reviewed to provide a comprehensive context. Of these, 41 studies were narratively summarized to outline the historical and conceptual evolution of C1–2 fusion techniques, while the remaining 20 post-2000 studies on contemporary surgical modifications were systematically reviewed and tabulated for technical details and clinical outcomes. C1–2 fusion techniques have evolved significantly over time. Early methods primarily involved posterior wiring with autologous bone grafts, but later transitioned to rigid segmental fixation using pedicle screw constructs, resulting in improved fusion rates and clinical outcomes. Interarticular fusion, when concurrently performed, enhances the biological fusion environment, contributing to favorable clinical results. C1 lateral mass, posterior arch, pedicle screws and C2 pedicle, lamina screws give us much stronger stability and higher fusion rates. Interarticular fusion using local bone also gives us technical easiness guaranteeing high fusion rate overcoming inconvenience of wiring and iliac bone harvest. Interarticular height reduction and interarticular fusion should be discriminated.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Hwang et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68dc26268a7d58c25ebb3059https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.2550960.480
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Bony Abnormalities in the Region of the Foramen Magnum: Correlation of the Anatomic and Neurologic Findings1953 · 210 citations
  2. 2Upper cervical spine instability systematic review: a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most influential publications2022 · 28 citations
  3. 3Fractures and dislocations of the cervical spine1939 · 719 citations
  4. 4Basilar Impression (Platybasia): A Bizarre Developmental Anomaly of the Occipital Bone and Upper Cervical Spine with Striking and Misleading Neurologic Manifestations.1939 · 260 citations
  5. 5C2 Nerve Root Transection during C1 Lateral Mass Screw Fixation: Does it Affect Functionality and Quality of Life?2013 · 5 citations