STUDY DESIGN: Experimental dog model of acute spinal cord injury. OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative value of methylprednisolone, surgical decompression, or both for the treatment of traumatic spinal cord injury. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Acute spinal cord injury results from both primary damage to the spinal cord at the time of the initial injury as well as a deleterious secondary cascade of events, which leads to further damage. Surgical decompression is known to improve clinical outcomes, but the timing of surgical decompression remains controversial. METHODS: A nylon tie was used to constrict the spinal cord in 18 adult male beagle dogs. The animals were then prospectively randomized to 3 groups: 1) surgical decompression at 6 hours and intravenous methylprednisolone; 2) surgical decompression at 6 hours and intravenous saline; and 3) intravenous methylprednisolone without surgical decompression. Each animal was evaluated by somatosensory-evoked potentials, daily neurologic assessment, and histologic examination at 2 weeks following injury. RESULTS: Immediately following spinal cord constriction, all animals were paraplegic, incontinent, and the somatosensory-evoked potentials were abolished. Surgical decompression 6 hours after injury, with or without methylprednisolone, led to significantly better neurologic function at 2 weeks than methylprednisolone alone. CONCLUSION: In the setting of acute and persistent spinal cord compression in beagle dogs, surgical decompression 6 hours after injury, with or without methylprednisolone, is more effective for improving neurologic recovery than methylprednisolone alone.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The internal carotid artery and hypoglossal nerve lie over the anterior aspect of the lateral mass of the atlas and are at risk from bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws. This has led to the recommendation for unicortical screws if the neurovascular structures are in close proximity to the proposed exit point. No data are available on strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws. PURPOSE: To compare the biomechanical pullout strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws in a cadaveric model. STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical study. METHODS: Fifteen cervical spine specimens underwent axial pullout testing. A unicortical C1-C2 transarticular screw was placed on one side with a contralateral bicortical screw. Data were analyzed to reveal any significant differences in strength. RESULTS: Mean pullout strength for the bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws was 1,048.8 (+/-360.1) N versus 939.2 (+/-360.6) for unicortical screws (p=.22). There was no significant difference in the pullout strength of unicortical and bicortical screws. CONCLUSIONS: In cases with satisfactory bone quality, it appears reasonable to use unicortical screws to avoid the risk of neurovascular injury from penetrating the anterior cortex of C1.

STUDY DESIGN: Anatomic study of the internal carotid artery (ICA) location with respect to C1 based on computed tomography (CT) scans with contrast medium. OBJECTIVE: To measure the location of the ICA relative to the anterior aspect of C1 to assess the risk of placing C1-C2 transarticular or C1 lateral mass screws. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Vertebral artery injury is a known risk from placement of screws in C1. A previous case report revealed an ideally placed C1-C2 transarticular screw abutting and narrowing the ICA. The risk of ICA injury from C1 screws is unknown. METHODS: Fifty random head and neck CT scans with contrast medium were retrospectively analyzed. Measurements were taken bilaterally including the closest distance from the ICA lumen to C1 and the distance from the medial edge of the ICA to a line drawn along the medial border of the foramen transversarium. The risk of inserting bicortical C1-C2 transarticular and C1 lateral mass screws was estimated based on these measurements. RESULTS: The mean distance from the ICA to C1 was 2.88 mm on the left and 2.89 mm on the right. The ICA lumen was medial to the foramen transversarium in 42 (84%) of 50 cases (mean: 2.78 mm on the left and 3.00 mm on the right). The proximity of the ICA to C1 posed moderate risk in 46% of cases and high risk in 12% (on at least one side). CONCLUSION: Because of the risk of ICA injury from a drill bit or the tip of a bicortical screw, we recommend preoperative CT scan with contrast medium in all cases in which a screw is to be placed into C1. If the ICA is in close proximity to the anterior border of C1, unicortical fixation or a different fusion technique should be considered.