Objective To explore and evaluate the accuracy and feasibil ity of individual rapid prototype (RP) drill templates for atlantoaxial pedicle screw implantation. Methods Volumetric CT scanning was performed in 8 adult cadaveric atlas and axis to collect Dicom format datas. Then three-dimensional (3D) images of atlas and axis were reconstructed and the parameters of pedicles of 3D model were measured by using software Mimics 10.01. The 3D model was saved by STLformat in Mimics. The scattered point cloud data of 3D model were processed and the 3D coordinate system was located in software Imageware 12.1. The curves and surfaces of 3D model were processed in software Geomagic Studio 10. The optimal trajectory of pedicle screw was designed and a template was constructed which accorded with the anatomical morphology of posterior arch of atlas and lamina of axis by using software Pro/Engineer 4.0. The optimal trajectory of pedicle screw and the template were integrated into a drill template finally. The drill template and physical models of atlas and axis were manufactured by RP (3D print technology). The accuracy of pilot holes of drill templates was assessed by visually inspecting and CT scanning. Results The individual drill template was used conveniently and each template could closely fit the anatomical morphology of posterior arch of atlas and lamina of axis. Template loosening and shifting were not found in the process of screw implantation. Thirty-two pedicle screws were inserted. Imaging and visual inspection revealed that the majority of trajectories did not penetrate the pedicle cortex, only 1 cortical penetration was judged as noncritical and did not injury the adjacent spinal cord, nerve roots, and vertebral arteries. The accuracy of atlas pedicle screw was grade 0 in 15 screws and grade I in 1 screw, and the accuracy of axis pedicle screw was grade 0 in 16 screws. Conclusion The potential of individual drill templates to aid implantation of atlantoaxial pedicle screw is promising because of its high accuracy.
【Abstract】 Objective To determine the three-dimensional stabil ity of atlantoaxial reconstruction withanterior approach screw fixation through C2 vertebral body to C1 lateral mass and Gall ie’s technique (ASMG) for C1,2instabil ity. Methods Twenty-five human cadaveric specimens (C0-3 ) were divided randomly into 5 groups (n=5). Thethree-dimensional ranges of motion C1 relative to C2 were measured under the five different conditions：the intact state group (group A), type II odontoid fracture group (group B), posterior C1,2 transarticular screw fixation group (group C), ASM group (group D) and ASMG group (group E). The three-dimensional ranges of motions C1 relative to C2 by loading ± 1.5 Nm were measured under the six conditions of flexion/extension, left/right lateral bending, and left/right axial rotation. The obtained data was statistically analyzed. Results In each group, the three-dimensional ranges of motion C1 relative to C2 under the six conditions of flexion/extension, left/right lateral bending, and left/right axial rotation were as follows: in group A (8.10 ± 1.08), (8.49 ± 0.82), (4.79 ± 0.47), (4.93 ± 0.34), (28.20 ± 0.64), (29.30 ± 0.84)°; in group B (13.60 ± 1.25), (13.80 ± 0.77), (9.64 ± 0.53), (9.23 ± 0.41), (34.90 ± 0.93), (34.90 ± 1.30)°; in group C (1.62 ± 0.10), (1.90 ± 0.34), (1.25 ± 0.13), (1.37 ± 0.28), (0.97 ± 0.14), (1.01 ± 0.17)°; in group D (2.03 ± 0.26), (2.34 ± 0.49), (1.54 ± 0.22), (1.53 ± 0.30), (0.80 ± 0.35), (0.76 ± 0.30)°; in group E (0.35 ± 0.12), (0.56 ± 0.34), (0.44 ± 0.15), (0.55 ± 0.16), (0.43 ± 0.07), (0.29 ± 0.06)°. Under the six conditions, there were generally significant differences between group A and other four groups, and between group B and groups C, D and E (P lt; 0.001), and between group E and groups C, D in flexion/ extension and left/right lateral bending (P lt; 0.05). There was no significant difference between group E and groups C, D in left/right axial rotation (P gt; 0.05). Conclusion In vivo biomechanical studies show that ASMG operation has unique superiority in the reconstruction of the atlantoaxial stabil ity, especially in controll ing stabil ity of flexion/extension and left/right lateral bending, and thus it ensures successful fusion of the implanted bone. It is arel iable surgical choice for the treatment of the obsolete instabil ity or dislocation of C1, 2 joint.