Biomechanical Comparison of 4 Fixation Techniques of Sacral Pedicle Screw in Osteoporotic Condition

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.

Download Full-text

A biomechanical comparison of 3 different posterior fixation techniques for 2-level lumbar spinal disorders

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2015.7.spine1534 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 24 (3) ◽

pp. 375-380 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Fubing Liu ◽

Zhenzhou Feng ◽

Tianze Liu ◽

Qinming Fei ◽

Chun Jiang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Pedicle Screw ◽

Posterior Fixation ◽

Lateral Bending ◽

Spinal Disorders ◽

Intact State ◽

Axial Torsion ◽

Flexion Extension ◽

Fixation Techniques ◽

Lumbar Spinal ◽

Biomechanical Comparison

OBJECT This study sought to make a biomechanical comparison of 3 different posterior fixation techniques for 2-level lumbar spinal disorders. METHODS Eight fresh-frozen human cadaver lumbar spines (4 from L-1 to L-5, 4 from L-1 to S-1) were tested by applying pure moments of ± 8 Nm. Each specimen was first tested intact, and then the left facetectomies of L3–4 and L4–5 were performed to establish an unstable condition without removal of discs. Three instrumentation systems were then tested randomly: unilateral pedicle screw (UPS), UPS with contralateral translaminar facet screw (UPSFS), and bilateral pedicle screw (BPS). The range of motion (ROM) and the neutral zone (NZ) of L3–5 were measured. RESULTS All fixation types could reduce the ROM of L3–5 significantly in flexion, extension, and lateral bending, compared with the intact state. In axial torsion, only BPS reduced the ROM significantly, compared with the intact state. The UPSFS technique provided intermediate stability, which was superior to the UPS in flexion-extension and lateral bending, and inferior to the BPS in lateral bending. Compared with the intact state, the NZs decreased significantly for UPS, UPSFS, and BPS in flexion-extension, while not significantly in lateral bending and axial torsion. CONCLUSIONS In this study, among the 3 fixation techniques, BPS offered the highest stability, UPSFS provided intermediate stability, and UPS was the least stable for 2-level lumbar spinal disorders. UPSFS appeared to be able to offer a less invasive choice than BPS in well-selected patients with 2-level lumbar spinal disorders.

Download Full-text