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.
Objective This study compared the efficacy of posterior pedicle screw fixation with 5.5-mm rods (PPSF5.5) with anterior corpectomy (AC) for metastatic cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) tumors.
Methods This retrospective analysis included patients with CTJ tumors who underwent PPSF5.5 or AC from January 2000 to December 2023. Data collected included demographics, surgical details, clinical outcomes (visual analogue scale scores for neck or back pain, Spinal Instability Neoplastic Scale score, McCormick scale, Nurick grade, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score), radiologic results (cervical segmental Cobb angle), and surgical complications (instrumentation failure, tumor regrowth, and wound infection).
Results The AC group showed a tendency for short-level fusion. Patients in this group had tumors primarily located near C7 and generally confined to the vertebral body. AC was associated with more significant postoperative kyphotic changes in the index vertebra during follow-up than PPSF5.5. Moreover, AC was associated with a higher incidence of instrumentation failure, necessitating revision surgeries. Conversely, patients in the PPSF5.5 group tended to require revision surgery due to tumor regrowth.
Conclusion For CTJ metastatic tumors, PPSF5.5 provides superior resistance to forward bending and collapse prevention and minimizes instrumentation failure rate compared to AC. Moreover, AC may reduce the risk of tumor recurrence, but this approach is recommended only if the tumor is confined to the vertebral body and located at the upper level of the CTJ.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
The efficacy of 5.5-mm diameter rods combined with cervical pedicle screws for the treatment of challenging spinal disease in cervicothoracic junction: Is it a game-changer? Younggyu Oh, Subum Lee, Sang Hyub Lee, Danbi Park, Chongman Kim, Sun Woo Jang, Jin Hoon Park Medicine.2025; 104(36): e44369. CrossRef
Sang Hyub Lee, Sun Woo Jang, Hong Kyung Shin, Jeoung Hee Kim, Danbi Park, Chang-Min Ha, Sun-Ho Lee, Dong Ho Kang, Young Hyun Cho, Sang Ryong Jeon, Sung Woo Roh, Jin Hoon Park
Neurospine 2024;21(1):293-302. Published online January 31, 2024
Objective Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been performed for spinal tumors. However, the quantitative effect of SRS on postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors remains unknown. This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the efficacy of SRS for treating postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors.
Methods We retrospectively reviewed cases of postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors from 1995 to 2020 in 2 tertiary institutions. Residual tumors underwent SRS (SRS group) or were observed with clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) follow-up (observation group). Tumor regrowth rates were compared between the SRS and observation groups. Additionally, risk factors for tumor regrowth were analyzed.
Results A total of 28 cervical dumbbell tumors were incompletely resected. Eight patients were in the SRS group, and 20 in the observation group. The mean regrowth rate was not significantly lower (p = 0.784) in the SRS group (0.18 ± 0.29 mm/mo) than in the observation group (0.33 ± 0.40 mm/mo). In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, SRS was not a significant variable (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18–1.79; p = 0.336).
Conclusion SRS did not significantly decrease the tumor regrowth rate in our study. We believe that achieving maximal resection during the initial operation is more important than postoperative adjuvant SRS.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Preoperative radiotherapy combined with surgery versus surgery alone for primary retroperitoneal sarcoma: a meta-analysis Young Rak Kim, Chang-Hyun Lee, Hangeul Park, Jun-Hoe Kim, Chi Heon Kim Scientific Reports.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
The utility of intraoperative ultrasonography for spinal cord surgery Hangeul Park, Jun-Hoe Kim, Chang-Hyun Lee, Sum Kim, Young-Rak Kim, Kyung-Tae Kim, Ji-hoon Kim, John M. Rhee, Woo-Young Jo, Hyongmin Oh, Hee-Pyoung Park, Chi Heon Kim, Barry Kweh PLOS ONE.2024; 19(7): e0305694. CrossRef
A Complete Facet Resection and Cervical Pedicle Screw Placement Enhances Both Gross Total Resection and Motion Preservation for the Cervical Spinal Dumbbell Tumor Sungsoo Bae, Dae-Jean Jo, Sun Woo Jang, Danbi Park, Sang Hyub Lee, Jinuk Kim, Chongman Kim, Jin Hoon Park World Neurosurgery.2024; 192: e486. CrossRef
Objective The cervical spine presents challenges in treating metastatic cervical spinal tumors (MCSTs). Although the efficacy of cervical pedicle screw placement (CPS) has been well established, its use in combination with 5.5-mm rods for MCST has not been reported. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of CPS combined with 5.5-mm rods in treating MCST and compare it with that of CPS combined with traditional 3.5-mm rods.
Methods This retrospective study analyzed 58 patients with MCST who underwent posterior cervical spinal fusion surgery by a single surgeon between March 2012 and December 2022. Data included demographics, surgical details, imaging results, numerical rating scale score for neck pain, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire responses.
Results Preoperative Spinal Instability Neoplastic Scores were significantly higher in the 5.5-mm rod group. Greater kyphotic changes in the index vertebra were observed in the 3.5-mm rod group. Neck pain reduction was significantly better in the 5.5-mm rod group.
Conclusion CPS with 5.5-mm rods provides superior biomechanical stability and effectively resists forward bending momentum in posterior MCST fusion surgery. These findings support the use of 5.5-mm rods to enhance surgical outcomes.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Anterior Corpectomy Versus Posterior Pedicle Screw Fixation With 5.5-mm Rods for Metastatic Spinal Tumor Located in the Cervicothoracic Junction Sun Woo Jang, Hong Kyung Shin, Sang Ryong Jeon, Sung Woo Roh, Danbi Park, Chongman Kim, Jin Hoon Park Neurospine.2025; 22(2): 603. CrossRef
The efficacy of 5.5-mm diameter rods combined with cervical pedicle screws for the treatment of challenging spinal disease in cervicothoracic junction: Is it a game-changer? Younggyu Oh, Subum Lee, Sang Hyub Lee, Danbi Park, Chongman Kim, Sun Woo Jang, Jin Hoon Park Medicine.2025; 104(36): e44369. CrossRef
Verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification of finite element analysis results for pedicle screw assemblies under ASTM F1717 flexion and extension testing On Sim, Byeong Cheol Jeong, Chiseung Lee Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
A Complete Facet Resection and Cervical Pedicle Screw Placement Enhances Both Gross Total Resection and Motion Preservation for the Cervical Spinal Dumbbell Tumor Sungsoo Bae, Dae-Jean Jo, Sun Woo Jang, Danbi Park, Sang Hyub Lee, Jinuk Kim, Chongman Kim, Jin Hoon Park World Neurosurgery.2024; 192: e486. CrossRef
Objective Romosozumab is increasingly employed to manage osteoporosis. However, no studies have analyzed its effects on recent osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of romosozumab compared with teriparatide in managing OVCFs.
Methods The electronic medical records of postmenopausal patients with recent OVCFs who were administered romosozumab or teriparatide for one year from March 2018 to August 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. We compared the 2 groups for demographics, radiological outcomes (compression ratio, Cobb angle, and bone mineral density [BMD]), and clinical outcomes (Numerical Rating Scale [NRS] for back pain).
Results Fifty-five patients with OVCFs, 32 patients treated with romosozumab and 23 with teriparatide, were included in this study. The change of BMD (g/cm2) values was significantly higher (p = 0.016) in the romosozumab (0.04 ± 0.06) than in the teriparatide group (0.00 ± 0.08) in the femur total. Furthermore, in subgroup analysis, the change of BMD (g/cm2) values in the lumbar spine was significantly higher (p = 0.016) in the romosozumab (0.12 ± 0.06) than in the teriparatide group (0.07 ± 0.06) in the lumbar spine. The decrease in NRS was significantly higher (p = 0.013) in the romosozumab (6.6 ± 2.0) than in the teriparatide group (5.5 ± 2.1). However, there was no significant difference in radiologic outcomes between the 2 groups.
Conclusion Our findings suggest that romosozumab may be more effective than teriparatide in treating OVCFs in postmenopausal females, particularly in improving BMD and reducing back pain as measured by NRS.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Romosozumab mitigates progression from radiological to symptomatic adjacent-level fractures compared to teriparatide Wei-Han Kao, Yi-Shan Yang, Chen-Ling Lan, Wen-Cheng Lo, Yung-Hsiao Chiang, Jiann-Her Lin Osteoporosis International.2026; 37(2): 491. CrossRef
Comparative Radiologic Outcomes of Romosozumab and Teriparatide in Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures Jun-Seok Lee, Geon-U Kim, Ho-Young Jung, Young-Hoon Kim, Sang-Il Kim, Sangjun Park, Young-Yul Kim, Hyung-Youl Park Journal of Clinical Medicine.2026; 15(6): 2349. CrossRef
Effectiveness of Posterior Long-Segment Fixation for Thoracolumbar Osteoporotic Compression Fractures: A Retrospective Study Jong-Hwan Hong, Jong-Hoon Jung, Ji-Ho Jung, Moon-Soo Han, Jung-Kil Lee World Neurosurgery.2025; 194: 123433. CrossRef
Off-label use of teriparatide for the treatment of a vertebral burst fracture in a young patient: A case report and literature review Tiziano Villa, Vincenzo Zottola, Carlo Mariani, Alberto Borgonovo, Luciano Redenti Trauma Case Reports.2025; 55: 101127. CrossRef
Comparative Analysis of Romosozumab Versus Vertebroplasty With Denosumab: Efficacy, Safety, and Secondary Bone Mineral Density Outcomes Hyun Woong Mun, Jong Joo Lee, Hyun Chul Shin, Tae-Hwan Kim, Seok Woo Kim, Jae Keun Oh Neurospine.2025; 22(1): 69. CrossRef
A Commentary on “Comparative Analysis of Romosozumab Versus Vertebroplasty With Denosumab: Efficacy, Safety, and Secondary Bone Mineral Density Outcomes” Toshihiko Inui Neurospine.2025; 22(1): 78. CrossRef
Comparing the Efficacy of Antiosteoporotic Drugs in Preventing Periprosthetic Bone Loss Following Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta‐Analysis Yi Tang, Zhaokai Jin, Yichen Lu, Lei Chen, Shuaijie Lv, Taotao Xu, Peijian Tong, Guoqian Chen Orthopaedic Surgery.2024; 16(10): 2344. CrossRef
Commentary on “Deep Learning-Assisted Quantitative Measurement of Thoracolumbar Fracture Features on Lateral Radiographs” Chao-Hung Kuo Neurospine.2024; 21(1): 44. CrossRef
Comparison of osteoanabolic agents (teriparatide and romosozumab) with bisphosphonates in prevention of subsequent vertebral fractures in patients treated for osteoporotic vertebral fracture for 12 months: An observational cohort study Keishi Maruo, Tomoyuki Kusukawa, Masakazu Toi, Tetsuto Yamaura, Masaru Hatano, Hayato Oishi, Kazuma Nagao, Fumihiro Arizumi, Kazuya Kishima, Norichika Yoshie, Toshiya Tachibana Bone Reports.2024; 21: 101762. CrossRef
Incidence and Risk Factors of Sacral Fracture Following Lumbosacral Fusion for Degenerative Spinal Stenosis with a Minimum Follow-Up of 2 Years: A Case–Control Study Sang Hyub Lee, Dong-Hwan Kim, Jin Hoon Park, Dong-Geun Lee, Choon Keun Park, Dong Ho Kang World Neurosurgery.2024; 191: e633. CrossRef
First
Prev
