Impact factor- High,

Title Author Year Citation Medium, Low

Spine Disease. In (eds)
Fundamentals of 2019 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17649-5_16
High
cervical spine surgery
Neurosurgery. Springer,in Joaquim et al
the United States: Wang et al 2005 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19352223/
High
Medicare
Spine beneficiaries,
Surgery Using the Liu et al
2017 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001999 High
National Inpatient
spinal fusion for
cervical spondylotic
Lad et al 2009 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18514286/
High
Review of Past
Nouri et al 2020 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32079075/
Medium
Perspectives, Present
Spectrum of
Related Disorders
Bhadiwala et al 2019 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26378358/
High
longitudinal ligament
versus other types of Kwok et al 2020 https://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12891-020-03830-0#Sec1
High
decompression and
degenerative cervical
fusion: a review of Badie et al 2020 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32309669/
Medium
cervical spine
incidence, risksurgery
factors,in
the United States: Wang et al 2009 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19352223/
High
Myelopathy:
Medicare beneficiaries,
Pathophysiology and Choi et al 2019 https://www.asianspinejournal.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.31616/asj.2020.0490
Medium
decompression
Current Treatment and
fusion: a review of Badiee et al 2020 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7154364/
High
incidence,Laminectomy
Posterior risk factors,
and Fusion
Badiee et al 2019 https://academic.oup.com/neurosurgery/article/66/Supplement_1/nyz310_409/5551874
Medium
benefit of C2 vs.
Passias et al 2019 https://jss.amegroups.com/article/view/4581/html
Medium https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6626746/
subaxial cervical upper-
accuracy and
Bransford et al 2011 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21289565/
Medium
complications
foramen and high-
riding vertebral artery: Elgafy et al 2014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2014.01.054
High
implication on C1–C2
transpedicular versus
Reddy et al 2007 https://doi.org/10.3171/SPI-07/10/414
Medium
translaminar
Introduction of C-2a screw
Novel
Risk of vertebral artery doi:
Posterior Surgical Kepler et al 2020 High
injury: comparison 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bc9cb5
Technique
C2 For Upper
Pars/Pedicle Screws
between C1-C2 Yeom et al 2013 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23684237/
Medium
in Management
transarticular andofC2
Accuracy and
Craniocervical safety
and of 2014 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3996339/
pedicle
Comparison
C2 screws
pedicle screw Eshra
orofpars
Medium
Upper Cervical
malposition and
screw placement: a
Instability Azimi et al 2020 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32690035/
High
vertebral
systematicartery
review injury
and
of C2 pedicle and
meta-analysis Elliot et al 2014 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22614268/
High
Degenerative
transarticular cervical
Biomechanical screws:
myelopathy
comparison
meta-analysis - update
ofand Bhadiwala et al 2020 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31974455/
High
and future
review directions
transpedicular
of the versus
literature Benke et al 2011 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21192213/
intralaminar C2 fixation
in C2-C6 subaxial
constructs
spondylotic changes is the most Keycommon
arguments cause of spinal cord Category Type of study Limitations
dysfunction in older adults. It is generally treated surgically, especially in Background Book chapter
cervical
those with spine are commonly
progressive diagnosed,
worsening." and seensigns
"Recognizing radiographically
and symptoms in of
over half of the population aged 55 years or greater." Background Quantitative
degenerative conditions in the 2001-2013 NIS database. The most
Background Quantitative
common type of surgery performed was anterior cervical fusion (ACF)
number of spinal fusions for CSM from 1993 to 2002. Despite continued
Background Quantitative
increases in patient medical comorbidities, overall complication rates
of disc and vertebral height, resulting in the in-folding of the
Pathology Qualitative
ligamentum
coexist in theflavum, same patient. which may In such alsocases
hypertrophy
where there in response.
is equipoise,As a 51 Pathology &
surgeon preference also plays a role. " Epidemiology & Book chapter
approaches and is unclear when either method is more suitable or ACLF vs PCLF
ACLF Vs PCLF Quantitative
preferred. There
complications has long with
associated beenPCF debateand theon the best approach
corresponding for cervical
prevention
strategies optimize patient outcomes." Quantitative
In the elderly, adjusted rates of cervical spine fusions rose 206% from Background Quantitative
1992 to 2005.
ACLF vc PCLF Quantitative
invasiveness of the planned procedure, thus increase complications.
PCLF &
Second, wound healing and arthrodesis may be impaired due to poor Qualitative
complications
blood flow due
short-term clinicalto various patient factors
or radiographic differences such between
as smoking, a C2diabetes,
and C3 UIV
UIV at C2 vs C3 Quantitative
when adjustingand
improvement forhad baseline characteristics.
complication profilesThese similarresults may aid
to subaxial UIV
UIV at C2 vs sub-
patients, demonstrating the radiographic benefit and minimal functional Quantitative
axial spines
"To
loss compare
associated
a dissection. the
Therewithrisk of vertebral
extending
were artery
fusion
no neurologic injury by
constructs
injuries. toC1-C2
Mean C2.CT the treatment C2 screw types and
Intransarticular
measurements
screw versus C2 pedicle screwand in an overallwidth patient population peri-operative Quantitative
of pedicle height, axial width, laminar were 8.1, 5.8, and and 5.7
subsets
screws. In of patients with aberrant a high-riding anatomyvertebralsuchartery and a narrow
as a high-riding complications
"Degenerative cervical Atypical CVA Quantitative
pedicle using
vertebral artery (VA) ormyelopathy
computed tomography
the presence (DCM)
(CT) isarcuate
of anscan theimages
leading and
foramen cause at of
three- C1,spinal
there
fixation,
cord generally
dysfunction
dimensional (3D) in the former
adults
screw type
worldwide.
trajectory of fixation was
DCM encompasses
software." associated
"Overall, neither with
various less C2 Instrumentation
Quantitative
motion
transverse
acquired
technique than the
foramen
(age-related)
has morelatter."
and "When
and
inherentvertebral pedicle
congenital
anatomicartery screws
(VA)
risk in C-2
ofprecludes
pathologies areartery
related
vertebral placement
to injury. of on Cadavers
such screws
degeneration
However, in in
theofuppresence
the to cervical
26% of ofpatients.4,5
spinal
athat column,
high-riding Invertebral
cases
includingwhere VA placement
anatomy of C2 instrumentation
hypertrophy
artery, Quantitative
"The
prevents
and/or pooledthe analysis
safe
calcification ofreveals
placement
thescrews ofsafer
ligaments, the intervertebral
aispedicle accuracy
screw, rates
a pars were
discsscrew93.8%
and is anforeasy
osseous C2
apedicle
pedicle
"The use screw
of
screw is
pars/pedicle significantly
free-hand, 93.7% a
forthe than
very
pars the placement
effective,
screw sound,
free-hand, of a
safe
92.2% and
for
"To compare the incidence ofpedicles,
screw malposition and C2 instrumentation Quantitative
tissues.
surgical
navigated
These
transarticular
modality
C2
pathologies
screw.
pedicle Narrow
for treating
screw,
narrow
andcraniocervical,
86.2%(TAS)
spinal
which canal,
might
atlantoaxial
for navigated bevertebral
leading
C2
toupper
anticipated
and
pars
artery
chronic
screwto(all,
injury
spinal
lead to(VAI)
cord
higher with
compression
risk transarticular
for a and
pedicle screws
disability.
screw Owing
than a and to C2the pedicle
transarticularageing screws
population,
screw, did
cervical
P value
Six <instabilities.
0.001).
fresh-frozen
(C2PS) No
cadaveric Increasing
statistically
cervical studies
significant
spines for the biomechanics
differences
underwent were
rigidity of this in
observed
testing C2 instrumentation Quantitative
rates
not ofusing
result
important DCM in ameta-analysis
are
region increasing.
significant
andand longer
techniques."
Expeditious
difference
periods because "With
diagnosis
of follow-upsmosttraining,
and
patients
are
experience,
treatment
(82%)
necessary ofand
with
to
between
the
DCM intact
anatomic the accuracy
condition
knowledge,
arepedicles
needed to avoid of
both placement
after
TAS a
permanent and C2
destabilizing
C2PS pedicle
can
disability. C3-C6
be versus
inserted
Over C2
the pars
laminectomy. screws
accurately
past patients."
10 years, and
narrow
document
with the the
free-hand had
usefulness a concurrent
technique of this
and high-riding
modality
the when
free-hand vertebral
treating
C2 artery
pedicle such that
group also C2 Instrumentation
versus
Meta-analysis
Specimens
safely.
advances
increased However,
in were
thebasic
risk instrumented
improper
science and
with a transarticularinwith
insertion 20
and mm
translational VAI
screw. pedicle
can
and
Excepthave and
clinical 20 mm
incatastrophic
research
case ofthere have
a high-
the navigated
intralaminar
consequences. C2
screws
Our pedicle
at
reviewC2, group
and (all,
with
identified P
14 value
mm
a higher > 0.05)."
lateral mass"Overall,
screws from was
C3-
improved
riding
no
our understanding
vertebral
difference artery,
inorder,
the safety our and of thesuggest
resultsaccuracy thatrisk
pathophysiology
between
ofsurgeon
thethe VAI,
of DCM neurological
free-hand
andopt
can and for C2 instrumentation
helped Meta-analysis
C6. In random
injury,
delineate
either andevidence-based
techniqueclinically and three
significant
expect conditions
practicesmalpositions
similar for (C2 pedicle
diagnosis
anatomic with
risks screws,
TAS
andof C2 laminar
compared
treatment.
vertebral with
artery
navigated techniques. Further well-conducted studies with Background Qualitative
screws,
C2PS.
Surgical
injury." and
These C2
data
decompression laminar
provide screws with offset
is preliminary
recommended supportconnectors)
for for
moderate and detailed
were
the supposition testedthat
severe in
DCM;
stratification
flexion-extension,
C2PS have a are
lower needed
axial
risk of to complement
rotation,
morbidity." and our
lateral
the best strategy for mild myelopathy remains unclear. Next-generation findings."
bending.
quantitative microstructural MRI and neurophysiological recordings
Laminar
promise screws
to enable in C2-C6 constructs
quantification were equivalent
of spinal cord tissuetodamage transpedicular
and help
fixation in flexion-extension
predict clinical outcomes. Here, (P =we 0.985),
provide were significantly more
a comprehensive, rigid
evidence-
than
basedpedicle
reviewscrews of DCM, in including
axial rotation (P = 0.002),
its definition, and were significantly
epidemiology,
less rigid than pedicle
pathophysiology, clinical screws in lateral bending
presentation, diagnosis(Pand = 0.002). Laminar
differential
screw constructs
diagnosis, were more rigid
and non-operative than the intact
and operative conditionWith
management. in allthis
planes
Review, we aim to equip physicians across broad disciplines with the
knowledge necessary to make a timely diagnosis of DCM, recognize the
clinical features that influence management and identify when urgent
surgical intervention is warranted."
 My notes

A good paper on use of ACF

vs PCF