Citations

In this era of budgetary constraints, the biggest threat to continuing biomedical research is often seen as governmental funding cutbacks. However, a much larger threat looms—the antiscientific programs of the various so-called animal rights groups. Unless clinicians and scientists mount a concerted defense of scientific investigation, the repressive antiscience movement will win out and thrust us into a Dark Ages scenario, with only a few gallant enough to maintain scientific thought until another Enlightenment. During World War II, the German clergyman Martin Niemoeller lamented the general apathy that allowed a small group of dedicated ideologues (the Nazi hierarchy) to terrorize the Germans: "In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." Not dissimilarly, the apathy of clinicians and biomedical scientists has permitted the radical animal rights movement to terrorize researchers and undermine our research freedom. In a call to action, the American Academy of Neurology has developed a statement (in association with the Foundation for Biomedical Research and other groups) on the threat to neurology research. This information was originally published in Neurology (1995;45: 609-610). In order to increase the dissemination of this important warning to clinicians and scientists everywhere, the Journal of Child Neurology in cooperation with the American Academy of Neurology is reprinting that material in this issue.

ObjectStabilization of the atlantoaxial complex has proven to be very challenging. Because of the high mobility of the C1–2 motion segment, fusion rates at this level have been substantially lower than those at the subaxial spine. The set of potential surgical interventions is limited by the anatomy of this region. In 2001 Jürgen Harms described a novel technique for individual fixation of the C-1 lateral mass and the C-2 pedicle by using polyaxial screws and rods. This method has been shown to confer excellent stability in biomechanical studies. Cadaveric and radiographic analyses have indicated that it is safe with respect to osseous and vascular anatomy. Clinical outcome studies and fusion rates have been limited to small case series thus far. The authors reviewed the multicenter experience with 102 patients undergoing C1–2 fusion via the polyaxial screw/rod technique. They also describe a modification to the Harms technique.MethodsOne hundred two patients (60 female and 42 male) with an average age of 62 years were included in this analysis. The average follow-up was 16.4 months. Indications for surgery were instability at the C1–2 level, and a chronic Type II odontoid fracture was the most frequent underlying cause. All patients had evidence of instability on flexion and extension studies. All underwent posterior C-1 lateral mass to C-2 pedicle or pars screw fixation, according to the method of Harms. Thirty-nine patients also underwent distraction and placement of an allograft spacer into the C1–2 joint, the authors' modification of the Harms technique. None of the patients had supplemental sublaminar wiring.ResultsAll but 2 patients with at least a 12-month follow-up had radiographic evidence of fusion or lack of motion on flexion and extension films. All patients with an allograft spacer demonstrated bridging bone across the joint space on plain x-ray films and computed tomography. The C-2 root was sacrificed bilaterally in all patients. A postoperative wound infection developed in 4 patients and was treated conservatively with antibiotics and local wound care. One patient required surgical debridement of the wound. No patient suffered a neurological injury. Unfavorable anatomy precluded the use of C-2 pedicle screws in 23 patients, and thus, they underwent placement of pars screws instead.ConclusionsFusion of C1–2 according to the Harms technique is a safe and effective treatment modality. It is suitable for a wide variety of fracture patterns, congenital abnormalities, or other causes of atlantoaxial instability. Modification of the Harms technique with distraction and placement of an allograft spacer in the joint space may restore C1–2 height and enhance radiographic detection of fusion by demonstrating a graft–bone interface on plain x-ray films, which is easier to visualize than the C1–2 joint.