Does Transection of the C2 Nerve Roots During C1 Lateral Mass Screw Placement for Atlantoaxial Fixation Result in a Superior Outcome?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of transection of the C2 roots during C1 lateral mass screw placement for atlantoaxial fixation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Transection of the C2 nerve roots has been recommended during atlantoaxial fixation to facilitate C1 lateral mass screw placement and possibly reduce postoperative occipital neuralgia, although this practice remains controversial. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies evaluating the outcomes of C1-2 fixation involving sacrifice of the C2 roots. We calculated transformed proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the outcomes of occipital neuralgia, numbness, bony fusion, and procedural morbidity. For studies comparing C2 transection with nerve sparing surgery, we performed meta-analyses for the outcomes of occipital neuralgia, occipital numbness, blood loss, and operative time. RESULTS: Eight observational studies (N = 393) met eligibility criteria. The rate of postoperative occipital neuralgia among included studies was 0% to 25%; occipital numbness, 6.7% to100%; bony fusion, 96.7% to 100%; and procedural morbidity, 0% to 14.3%. Among comparative studies, C2 transection was associated with a higher rate of occipital numbness [odds ratio (OR) 178.6 (95% CI 26.6 to 1198.4)], lower blood loss [mean difference (MD) -195.3 mL (95% CI -317.7 to -72.8 mL)] and shorter operative times [MD -57.5 mins (95% CI -76.9 to -38.2 mins)] than when the C2 roots were spared. We found no difference in rates of occipital neuralgia [OR 1.44 (95% CI 0.45 to 4.68)]. CONCLUSION: Transection of the C2 nerve roots appears to be a viable, safe option when undertaking placement of C1 lateral mass screws. The procedure is associated with reduced operative duration and blood loss, increased rate of occipital numbness, and no change in the rate of occipital neuralgia. However, given the relatively low quality of evidence, prospective, controlled studies to evaluate this strategy are recommended. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N /A.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".