C7 Pedicle vs. Lateral Mass Screws in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Retrospective Analysis of Cervical Alignment Parameters

Year 2025, Volume: 42 Issue: 1, 14 - 19, 28.03.2025

Mustafa Serdar Bölük , Bilal Bahadır Akbulut , Elif Ezgi Cenberlitas , Hüseyin Biçeroğlu , Taşkın Yurtseven

Abstract

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) frequently requires surgical intervention at C7, with the choice between pedicle and lateral mass screws influencing outcomes. Pedicle screws offer superior biomechanical stability but carry higher neurovascular risks, while lateral mass screws are safer but less stable. Limited data compare these techniques in CSM treatment, particularly without O-arm navigation. To compare the safety, efficacy, and spinal alignment outcomes of C7 pedicle screws versus lateral mass screws in CSM patients, especially in settings lacking advanced imaging technologies. This retrospective cohort study analyzed 23 patients (13 with lateral mass screws, 10 with pedicle screws) who underwent posterior fusion surgery for CSM between 2013 and 2022. Preoperative and postoperative CT scans and a minimum one-year follow-up were required. Radiological parameters, including C2 slope, T1 slope, C2-7 Cobb angle, and sagittal vertical axis (SVA), were assessed, along with complications such as screw loosening, breakage, and revision surgeries. No significant differences were found between the two groups in screw loosening (69.2% vs. 60%), breakage (7% vs. 20%), or distal junctional kyphosis rates (7.7% vs. 0%). Both groups demonstrated similar improvements in spinal alignment parameters at postoperative and one-year follow-ups. One patient in the pedicle group required revision for a major foraminal breach, while three patients in the lateral mass group underwent revision for proximal junctional kyphosis. Both pedicle and lateral mass screws provided comparable safety, efficacy, and alignment outcomes at C7 in CSM patients. The choice of screw type should depend on patient anatomy, surgeon preference, and the availability of imaging technology.

Keywords

Cervical Vertebrae, Bone Screws, Spinal Fusion, Tomography

Project Number

24-3T/35

References

• 1. Brara HS, Royse KE, Fennessy J, Harris JE, Guppy KH. Lateral mass screws versus pedicle screws at C7: reoperation rates for operative adjacent segment disease and nonunion in posterior cervical fusion. Spine. 2023 Jul 1;48(13):920–9.
• 2. Kim S-H, Kim J-H, Kwon J-W, Kim H-S, Moon S-H, Suk K-S, et al. Assessment of Biomechanical Advantages in Combined Anterior-Posterior Cervical Spine Surgery by Radiological Outcomes: Pedicle Screws over Lateral Mass Screws. J Clin Med. 2023 Apr 29;12(9).
• 3. Inoue D, Shigematsu H, Matsumori H, Ueda Y, Tanaka Y. Accuracy of Lateral Mass Screw Insertion during Cervical Spine Surgery without Fluoroscopic Guidance and Comparison of Postoperative Screw Loosening Rate among Unicortical and Bicortical Screws Using Computed Tomography. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2022 Nov 27;6(6):625– 30.
• 4. Çelikoğlu E, Demir H. Factors affecting surgical outcomes in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: A retrospective study. Istanbul Med J. 2023 May 31;24(2):172–80.
• 5. Lenz M, Egenolf P, Weber M, Ott N, Meyer C, Eysel P, et al. Pedicle or lateral mass screws in Goel-Harms construct? A biomechanical analysis. Injury. 2023 Mar 27;
• 6. Naessig S, Ahmad W, Pierce KE, Passfall L, Kummer N, Krol O, et al. 221. Defining clinically relevant distal failure in the treatment of adult cervical deformity: an improved definition based on functional outcomes and need for reoperation. Spine J. 2021 Sep;21(9):S113–4.
• 7. Iwamae M, Tamai K, Suzuki A, Terai H, Hoshino M, Kato M, et al. Degeneration of Cervical Multifidus Muscles Negatively Affects Physical Activity-related Quality of Life After Laminoplasty for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy. Clin Spine Surg. 2024 Feb 16;
• 8. Mitsutake T, Sakamoto M, Chyuda Y, Oka S, Hirata H, Matsuo T, et al. Greater cervical muscle fat infiltration evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging is associated with poor postural stability in patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. Spine. 2016 Jan;41(1):E8-14.
• 9. Kim C-Y, Lee S-M, Lim S-A, Choi Y-S. Impact of Fat Infiltration in Cervical Extensor Muscles on Cervical Lordosis and Neck Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study. Clin Orthop Surg. 2018 Jun;10(2):197–203.
• 10. Lee JS, Son DW, Lee SH, Ki SS, Lee SW, Song GS, et al. The Effect of Hounsfield Unit Value with Conventional Computed Tomography and Intraoperative Distraction on Postoperative Intervertebral Height Reduction in Patients Following Stand-Alone Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2022 Jan;65(1):96– 106.
• 11. Wang M, Mummaneni PV, Xi Z, Chang C-C, Rivera J, Guinn J, et al. Lower Hounsfield units on CT are associated with cage subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020 Jun 5;1–8.
• 12. Viswanathan VK, Subramanian S, Viswanathan S. Comparison of Three Different Options for C7 Posterior Vertebral Anchor in the Indian Population-Lateral Mass, Pedicle, and Lamina: A Computed Tomography-Based Morphometric Analysis. Asian Spine J. 2018 Aug;12(4):726–33.
• 13. Johnston TL, Karaikovic EE, Lautenschlager EP, Marcu D. Cervical pedicle screws vs. lateral mass screws: uniplanar fatigue analysis and residual pullout strengths. Spine J. 2006 Dec;6(6):667–72.
• 14. Jones EL, Heller JG, Silcox DH, Hutton WC. Cervical pedicle screws versus lateral mass screws. Anatomic feasibility and biomechanical comparison. Spine. 1997 May 1;22(9):977–82.
• 15. Kothe R, Rüther W, Schneider E, Linke B. Biomechanical analysis of transpedicular screw fixation in the subaxial cervical spine. Spine. 2004 Sep 1;29(17):1869–75.
• 16. Katonis P, Papadakis SA, Galanakos S, Paskou D, Bano A, Sapkas G, et al. Lateral mass screw complications: analysis of 1662 screws. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011 Oct;24(7):415–20.
• 17. Ames CP, Blondel B, Scheer JK, Schwab FJ, Le Huec J-C, Massicotte EM, et al. Cervical radiographical alignment: comprehensive assessment techniques and potential importance in cervical myelopathy. Spine. 2013 Oct 15;38(22 Suppl 1):S149-60.
• 18. Abumi K, Ito M, Sudo H. Reconstruction of the subaxial cervical spine using pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine. 2012 Mar 1;37(5):E349-56.
• 19. Yoshihara H, Passias PG, Errico TJ. Screw-related complications in the subaxial cervical spine with the use of lateral mass versus cervical pedicle screws: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013 Nov;19(5):614–23.
• 20. Karaikovic EE, Daubs MD, Madsen RW, Gaines RW. Morphologic characteristics of human cervical pedicles. Spine. 1997 Mar 1;22(5):493–500.
• 21. Oda I, Abumi K, Sell LC, Haggerty CJ, Cunningham BW, McAfee PC. Biomechanical evaluation of five different occipito-atlanto-axial fixation techniques. Spine. 1999 Nov 15;24(22):2377–82.
• 22. Karaikovic EE, Yingsakmongkol W, Gaines RW. Accuracy of cervical pedicle screw placement using the funnel technique. Spine. 2001 Nov 15;26(22):2456–62.
• 23. Hur J-W, Kim J-S, Ryu K-S, Shin M-H. Accuracy and Safety in Screw Placement in the High Cervical Spine: Retrospective Analysis of O-arm-based Navigation-assisted C1 Lateral Mass and C2 Pedicle Screws. Clin Spine Surg. 2019 May;32(4):E193–9.
• 24. Zhang K, Chen H, Chen K, Yang P, Yang H, Mao H. O-Arm Navigated Cervical Pedicle Screw Fixation in the Treatment of Lower Cervical Fracture-Dislocation. Orthop Surg. 2022 Jun;14(6):1135–42.
• 25. Wada K, Tamaki R, Inoue T, Hagiwara K, Okazaki K. Cervical Pedicle Screw Insertion Using O-Arm-Based 3D Navigation: Technical Advancement to Improve Accuracy of Screws. World Neurosurg. 2020 Jul;139:e182–8.
• 26. Gan G, Kaliya-Perumal A-K, Yu CS, Nolan CP, Oh JY-L. Spinal navigation for cervical pedicle screws: surgical pearls and pitfalls. Global Spine J. 2021 Mar;11(2):196-202.