A Biomechanical Comparison of a Novel Thoracic Screw Fixation Method: Transarticular Screw Fixation vs Traditional Pedicle Screw Fixation

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 272-274
Author(s):  
R. Riesenburger
Neurosurgery ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 426-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel K. Resnick ◽  
Edward C. Benzel

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE AND IMPORTANCE Transarticular screw fixation of the C1–C2 complex provides immediate rigid fixation of the unstable spine. The technique is not feasible in a certain proportion of patients because of the position of the vertebral artery or the patient's body habitus. CLINICAL PRESENTATION The authors describe a rigid screw technique for the surgical treatment of a woman who was excluded as a candidate for C1–C2 transarticular screw fixation. TECHNIQUE C1–C2 pedicle screw fixation was achieved using a fixed moment arm cantilever beam system. This system provided immediate rigid fixation of the C1–C2 complex in a patient who was not a candidate for transarticular screw fixation. CONCLUSION This technique is technically more forgiving than posterior transarticular screw fixation and may be applied to a broader spectrum of patients.


Neurosurgery ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 516-521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samir B. Lapsiwala ◽  
Paul A. Anderson ◽  
Ashish Oza ◽  
Daniel K. Resnick

Abstract OBJECTIVE: We performed a biomechanical comparison of several C1 to C2 fixation techniques including crossed laminar (intralaminar) screw fixation, anterior C1 to C2 transarticular screw fixation, C1 to 2 pedicle screw fixation, and posterior C1 to C2 transarticular screw fixation. METHODS: Eight cadaveric cervical spines were tested intact and after dens fracture. Four different C1 to C2 screw fixation techniques were tested. Posterior transarticular and pedicle screw constructs were tested twice, once with supplemental sublaminar cables and once without cables. The specimens were tested in three modes of loading: flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. All tests were performed in load and torque control. Pure bending moments of 2 nm were applied in flexion-extension and lateral bending, whereas a 1 nm moment was applied in axial rotation. Linear displacements were recorded from extensometers rigidly affixed to the C1 and C2 vertebrae. Linear displacements were reduced to angular displacements using trigonometry. RESULTS: Adding cable fixation results in a stiffer construct for posterior transarticular screws. The addition of cables did not affect the stiffness of C1 to C2 pedicle screw constructs. There were no significant differences in stiffness between anterior and posterior transarticular screw techniques, unless cable fixation was added to the posterior construct. All three posterior screw constructs with supplemental cable fixation provide equal stiffness with regard to flexion-extension and axial rotation. C1 lateral mass-C2 intralaminar screw fixation restored resistance to lateral bending but not to the same degree as the other screw fixation techniques. CONCLUSION: All four screw fixation techniques limit motion at the C1 to 2 articulation. The addition of cable fixation improves resistance to flexion and extension for posterior transarticular screw fixation.


Spine ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 40 (24) ◽  
pp. 1890-1897 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Mayer ◽  
Daniel Stephan ◽  
Herbert Resch ◽  
Peter Augat ◽  
Alexander Auffarth ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Hiroki Oshino ◽  
Toshihiko Sakakibara ◽  
Tadashi Inaba ◽  
Takamasa Yoshikawa ◽  
Takaya Kato ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 56 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. ONS-151-ONS-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Kuroki ◽  
Setti S. Rengachary ◽  
Vijay K. Goel ◽  
Scott A. Holekamp ◽  
Ville Pitkänen ◽  
...  

Abstract OBJECTIVE: To compare the biomechanical stability imparted to the C1 and C2 vertebrae by either transarticular screw fixation (TSF) or screw and rod fixation (SRF) techniques in a cadaver model. METHODS: Ten fresh ligamentous human cervical spine specimens were harvested from cadavers. The specimens were tested sequentially in the intact state, after injury and stabilization (unilateral left side and bilateral), and after fatiguing to 5000 cycles (0.5 Hz) at ±1.0 N·m of flexion and extension. The specimens were stabilized by use of TSF in 5 spines or SRF in the other 5 spines. The data were converted to angular displacements, and the stabilized cases were compared with intact states for evaluating the efficacies of the two techniques in stabilizing the C1–C2 segments. RESULTS: In the TSF group, the unilateral fixation using one screw imparted a significant stability in only the axial rotation mode. The unilateral procedure in the SRF group was effective in stabilization in all modes except in extension. The bilateral procedure in both of the groups was effective across the C1–C2 segment. However, the SRF group afforded higher stability than the corresponding TSF group in the flexion and extension modes. The degree of stability did not change after fatigue compared with the prefatigue data. CONCLUSION: In general, a surgeon should undertake a bilateral fixation to achieve sufficient stability across the atlantoaxial complex, and either technique will provide satisfactory results, although the SRF technique may be better in the flexion and extension modes. One should use the SRF procedure while trying to achieve stability with a unilateral system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document