ArticleNeurospine2025
Atlantoaxial Reconstruction: The Artful Evolution of Craniovertebral Junctional Spine Surgery.
Article in Neurospine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Orthopedic Biomaterials in the Clinical Reconstruction of Osteoporotic Atlantoaxial Injuries: A Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- C1 pedicle screw placement risks in patients with ponticulus posticus: a CTA retrospective simulation study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Visible light navigation for C1/C2 fixation and a rare complication related to C2 lamina fracture: case report.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.