C1-2 arthrography

Chevrot, A.; Čermáková, Eva; Vallée, C.; Chancelier, M. D.; Chemla, N.; Rousselin, B.; Langer-Cherbit, Adriana

doi:10.1007/bf00941238

Cited by 27 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conceivably, the injection itself could be considered the definitive treatment if it provides long-term relief. 4 In five of the six patients with C1-2 arthrosis, total pain relief lasting between 36 hours and 3 days was achieved. The patient in whom no response was elicited may have had a different source of pain.…”

Section: Treatment For C1-2 Arthrosismentioning

confidence: 98%

Treatment of severe retromastoid pain secondary to C1–2 arthrosis by using cervical fusion

Holly

Batzdorf²,

Foley³

2000

Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Object. In this report the authors review their 5-year experience in the diagnosis and management of nine patients with severe retromastoid pain secondary to C1–2 arthrosis. Patients with symptomatic joints unresponsive to nonoperative therapy underwent cervical fusion procedures. Methods. The mean age of the patients was 71 years, and the onset of prior symptoms ranged from 6 months to 18 years. All patients suffered similar discrete nonneuropathic pain without radicular symptoms ipsilateral to the diseased facet joint. Four patients experienced relief from pain with the use of nonoperative therapy. Five patients continued to experience intractable pain and underwent C1–2 fusion. The follow-up period ranged from 6 to 26 months. The cervical fusion procedure was successful in treating the retromastoid pain in all patients. In patients who underwent surgery, complete relief of pain was demonstrated in four and significantly reduced in the fifth. Conclusions. The authors have drawn several conclusions. First, C1–2 arthrosis has a rather unique presentation and is a potential cause of upper posterior neck and head pain predominantly in elderly patients. Second, nonoperative management significantly improved the pain in nearly half of their patients and should be the first line of treatment. Last, C1–2 fusion was successful in treating the pain in patients in whom nonoperative management had failed to resolve symptoms.

show abstract

Section: Treatment For C1-2 Arthrosismentioning

confidence: 98%

Treatment of severe retromastoid pain secondary to C1–2 arthrosis by using cervical fusion

Holly

Batzdorf²,

Foley³

2000

Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The indication for atlantoaxial fixation surgery is the presence of severe pain that is unresponsive to conservative management. Initial management can include NSAIDs, soft collar, physiotherapy, chiropractic manipulation and targeted cortisone injections (14,18,20,21). Some patients reported in the literature have undergone C2 radiofrequency lesioning and ganglionectomy in an effort to alleviate symptoms (6,8).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and radiological outcomes of image guided posterior C1-C2 fixation for atlantoaxial osteoarthritis (AAOA)

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Atlantoaxial (C1-C2) osteoarthritis (AAOA) causes severe suboccipital pain exacerbated by lateral rotation. The pain is usually progressive and resistant to conservative therapy. Posterior fusion surgery is performed to stabilise the C1-C2 segment. This is the first Australian study reporting the outcome of posterior atlantoaxial fixation including hybrid fixations performed for AAOA. Methods: All patients who underwent posterior atlantoaxial fixation surgery for AAOA from 2005 to 2015 at our institutions were enrolled (N=23). Patient demographics and surgical technique were recorded. These techniques included transarticular screw (TAS) fixation using image guidance with iliac crest bone graft and supplemental posterior Sonntag wiring, or C1-C2 lateral mass fixation (Harms technique). Some patients required a combination of fixation due to anatomical variation. Primary outcome measures including patient satisfaction, pain, disability scores and range of motion were recorded for all patients pre-and postoperatively. Post-operative assessment was supplemented with CT and X-ray imaging. Results: Twenty-three patients (19 women, 4 males, mean age 71.8±6.3 years) underwent surgical fixation. Eight underwent TAS fixation, 8 had Harms fixation, and 7 had a hybrid fixation. All patients reported statistically significant improvement in pain scores [Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) 9.4 pre-op compared to 2.9 post-op, P<0.005]. Disability scores [Neck Disability Index (NDI)] were statistically significantly reduced from 72.2±12.9 pre-operatively to 18.9±11.9 post-operatively, P<0.005. Mean followup was 55.3±36.1 months. Results did not vary according to the construct type. Ninety-five point five percent of patients showed radiographic evidence of fusion. Ninety-one percent of patients said they would undergo the surgery again. Conclusions: Posterior atlantoaxial fixation with TAS and Harms constructs are highly effective for the surgical treatment of intractable neck pain secondary to atlantoaxial lateral mass osteoarthritis (AAOA). Surgery offers a high rate of symptom relief. If anatomical variability exists, both transarticular and pedicle screw fixation could be safely used in the same patient.

show abstract

“…There have been several studies evaluating the efficacy of the C1–2 joint injections. 4 – 12 In a retrospective study of 32 C1–2 injections, 40.6% of patients had an exacerbation of their headache symptoms during the injection, but 81.2% of patients had a >50% reduction in their pain score after the injection. 9 This supports the efficacy of these injections for patients with pain from the C1–2 joint, but the study did not focus on AEs as a primary outcome.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 2 – 3 , 8 Intra-articular joint injections have been shown to be beneficial; 4 – 5 . 9 – 12 however, the safety of these injections has been questioned. 13 – 16 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of C1–2 joint injections

Aiudi¹,

Hooten²,

Sanders³

et al. 2017

JPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveIntra-articular injections of the C1–2 joint are an effective therapeutic option for pain generated from degenerative and inflammatory conditions affecting the joint. Limited information exists about the adverse events (AEs) associated with these injections. The primary aim of this study is to describe the frequency and type of AEs associated with C1–2 joint injections. The secondary aim is to identify clinical factors associated with the occurrence of AEs of C1–2 joint injections.Design/methodsA retrospective chart review was conducted on all C1–2 joint injections performed at the Mayo Pain Medicine Clinic in Rochester, MN, from January 1, 2005 through July 31, 2015. AE data were extracted from procedural and post-procedural clinical notes. Analysis was conducted to determine correlations between any AE and demographic and clinical characteristics. Using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, associations were determined.ResultsFrom January 1, 2005 to July 31, 2015, 135 C1–2 injections were performed on 72 patients. Overall, at least 1 AE was reported in 18.5% of the injections. The most common AEs were post-procedural increase in pain and procedural vascular contrast uptake. There was a significant association between AE occurrence and greater pre-procedural maximum pain score.ConclusionsAEs from C1–2 joint injections occurred commonly, but there were no persistent or serious AEs associated with these injections. The data also demonstrate that patients with higher pre-procedural maximum pain scores are more likely to experience an AE.

show abstract

C1-2 arthrography

Abstract: C1-2 arthrography appears to be an efficient and safe technique for the treatment of upper cervical pain due to C1-2 articular disorders.

Cited by 27 publications

References 14 publications

Treatment of severe retromastoid pain secondary to C1–2 arthrosis by using cervical fusion

Treatment of severe retromastoid pain secondary to C1–2 arthrosis by using cervical fusion

Clinical and radiological outcomes of image guided posterior C1-C2 fixation for atlantoaxial osteoarthritis (AAOA)

Outcomes of C1–2 joint injections

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

C1-2 arthrography

Abstract: C1-2 arthrography appears to be an efficient and safe technique for the treatment of upper cervical pain due to C1-2 articular disorders.

Cited by 27 publications

References 14 publications

Treatment of severe retromastoid pain secondary to C1–2 arthrosis by using cervical fusion

Treatment of severe retromastoid pain secondary to C1–2 arthrosis by using cervical fusion

Clinical and radiological outcomes of image guided posterior C1-C2 fixation for atlantoaxial osteoarthritis (AAOA)

Outcomes of C1&ndash;2 joint injections

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Outcomes of C1–2 joint injections