Biomechanical comparison between C-7 lateral mass and pedicle screws in subaxial cervical constructs

2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 688-694 ◽  
Author(s):  
Risheng Xu ◽  
Matthew J. McGirt ◽  
Edward G. Sutter ◽  
Daniel M. Sciubba ◽  
Jean-Paul Wolinsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rotational Motion ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Materials Testing ◽  
Rigid Fixation ◽  
Lateral Mass ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Cyclical Loading ◽  
Lateral Mass Screws ◽  
Biomechanical Comparison

Object The aim of this study was to conduct the first in vitro biomechanical comparison of immediate and postcyclical rigidities of C-7 lateral mass versus C-7 pedicle screws in posterior C4–7 constructs. Methods Ten human cadaveric spines were treated with C4–6 lateral mass screw and C-7 lateral mass (5 specimens) versus pedicle (5 specimens) screw fixation. Spines were potted in polymethylmethacrylate bone cement and placed on a materials testing machine. Rotation about the axis of bending was measured using passive retroreflective markers and infrared motion capture cameras. The motion of C-4 relative to C-7 in flexion-extension and lateral bending was assessed uninstrumented, immediately after instrumentation, and following 40,000 cycles of 4 Nm of flexion-extension and lateral bending moments at 1 Hz. The effect of instrumentation and cyclical loading on rotational motion across C4–7 was analyzed for significance. Results Preinstrumented spines for the 2 cohorts were comparable in bone mineral density and range of motion in both flexion-extension (p = 0.33) and lateral bending (p = 0.16). Lateral mass and pedicle screw constructs significantly reduced motion during flexion-extension (11.3°–0.26° for lateral mass screws, p = 0.002; 10.51°–0.30° for pedicle screws, p = 0.008) and lateral bending (7.38°–0.27° for lateral mass screws, p = 0.003; 11.65°–0.49° for pedicle screws, p = 0.03). After cyclical loading in both cohorts, rotational motion over C4–7 was increased during flexion-extension (0.26°–0.68° for lateral mass screws; 0.30°–1.31° for pedicle screws) and lateral bending (0.27°–0.39° and 0.49°–0.80°, respectively), although the increase was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). There was no statistical difference in postcyclical flexion-extension (p = 0.20) and lateral bending (0.10) between lateral mass and pedicle screws. Conclusions Both C-7 lateral mass and C-7 pedicle screws allow equally rigid fixation of subaxial lateral mass constructs ending at C-7. Immediately and within a simulated 6-week postfixation period, C-7 lateral mass screws may be as effective as C-7 pedicle screws in biomechanically stabilizing long subaxial lateral mass constructs.

Biomechanical Comparison of Translaminar Versus Pedicle Screws at T1 and T2 in Long Subaxial Cervical Constructs

2009 ◽  
Vol 65 (suppl_6) ◽  
pp. ons167-ons172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. McGirt ◽  
Edward G. Sutter ◽  
Risheng Xu ◽  
Daniel M. Sciubba ◽  
Jean-Paul Wolinsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Rotational Motion ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Rigid Fixation ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Translaminar Screw ◽  
Cyclical Loading ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Upper Thoracic

Abstract Objective: The first in vitro biomechanical investigation comparing the immediate and postcyclical rigidities of thoracic translaminar versus pedicle screws in posterior constructs crossing the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ). Methods: Ten human cadaveric spines underwent C4–C6 lateral mass screw and T1–T2 translaminar (n = 5) versus pedicle (n = 5) screw fixation. Spines were then potted in polymethylmethacrylate bone cement and placed on a materials testing machine. Rotation about the axis of bending was measured using passive retroreflective markers and infrared motion capture cameras. The motion of C6 relative to T2 in flexion-extension and lateral bending was assessed uninstrumented, immediately after instrumentation, and after 40,000 cycles of 4 N•m flexion-extension and lateral bending moments at 1 Hz. The effect of instrumentation and cyclical loading on rotational motion across the CTJ was analyzed for significance. Results: Compared with preinstrumented spines, pedicle and translaminar screw constructs significantly (P < 0.001) decreased motion during flexion-extension and lateral bending. After cyclical loading, rotational motion at the CTJ was significantly increased (P < 0.05) during flexion-extension and lateral bending in both groups. With flexion-extension, the mean rotational motion across the CTJ was similar in the translaminar and pedicle constructs immediately after fixation, but slightly greater (P = 0.03) after cyclical loading in the translaminar versus the pedicle screw constructs (0.39 degrees versus 0.26 degrees). Nevertheless, after cyclical loading, the mean angular motion across the CTJ remained less than one half of a degree in both groups. With lateral bending, the mean rotational motion was similar in both translaminar and pedicle screw constructs. Conclusion: Both upper thoracic translaminar and pedicle screws allow for rigid fixation at the CTJ. Although translaminar screw constructs demonstrated one eighth of a degree more motion at the CTJ after cycling, this minimal difference is likely less than would influence the biological fusion process. Upper thoracic translaminar screws are a biomechanically effective option to rigidly stabilize the CTJ.

scholarly journals Biomechanical Comparison of Posterior Fixation Combinations with an Allograft Spacer between the Lateral Mass and Pedicle Screws

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (20) ◽  
pp. 7291
Author(s):  
Soo-Bin Lee ◽  
Hwan-Mo Lee ◽  
Tae-Hyun Park ◽  
Sung Lee ◽  
Young-Woo Kwon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Element Model ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Hybrid Technique ◽  
Lateral Mass ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Hybrid Motion ◽  
Biomechanical Comparison

Background: There are a few biomechanical studies that describe posterior fixation methods with pedicle screws (PS) and lateral mass screws (LMS); the combination of both screw types and their effect on an allograft spacer in a surgically treated cervical segment is unknown. Methods: Finite element model (FEM) analyses were used to investigate the effects of a hybrid technique using posterior PS and LMS. Stress distribution and subsidence risk from a combination of screws under hybrid motion control conditions, including flexion, extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending, were investigated to evaluate the biomechanical characteristics of different six-screw combinations. Findings: The load sharing on the allograft spacer in flexion mode was highest in the LMS model (74.6%) and lowest in the PS model (35.1%). The likelihood of subsidence of allograft spacer on C6 was highest in the screws from the distal LMS (type 5) model during flexion and extension (4.902 MPa, 30.1% and 2.189 MPa, 13.4%). In lateral bending, the left unilateral LMS (type 4) model screws on C5 (3.726 MPa, 22.9%) and C6 (2.994 MPa, 18.4%) yielded the greatest subsidence risks, because the lateral bending forces were supported by the LMS. In counterclockwise axial rotation, the left unilateral LMS (type 4) model screws on C5 (3.092 MPa, 19.0%) and C6 (3.076 MPa, 18.9%) demonstrated the highest subsidence risks. Conclusion: The asymmetrical ipsilateral use of LMS and posterior PS in lateral bending and axial rotation demonstrated the lowest stability and greatest subsidence risk. We recommend bilateral symmetrical insertion of LMS or posterior PS and posterior PS on distal vertebrae for increased stability and reduced risk of allograft spacer subsidence.

Stabilization of the Atlantoaxial Joint With C1-C3 Lateral Mass Screw Constructs: Biomechanical Comparison With Standard Technique

2010 ◽  
Vol 67 (suppl_2) ◽  
pp. ons422-ons428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo B. C. Brasiliense ◽  
Bruno C. R. Lazaro ◽  
Phillip M. Reyes ◽  
Douglas Fox ◽  
Volker K. H. Sonntag ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Atlantoaxial Joint ◽  
Lateral Mass ◽  
Lateral Mass Screw ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Lateral Mass Screws ◽  
Left And Right

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Anatomically and biomechanically, the atlantoaxial joint is unique compared with the remainder of the cervical spine. OBJECTIVE: To assess the in vitro stability provided by 2 C2 screw sparing techniques in a destabilized model of the atlantoaxial joint and compare with the gold standard system. METHODS: The 3-dimensional intervertebral motion of 7 human cadaveric cervical spine specimens was recorded stereophotogrammetrically while applying nonconstraining, nondestructive pure moments during flexion-extension, left and right axial rotation, and left and right lateral bending. Each specimen was tested in the intact state, followed by destabilization (odontoidectomy) and fixation as follows: (1) C1 and C3 lateral mass screws rods with sublaminar wiring of C2 (LC1-C3 + SW), (2) C1 and C3 lateral mass screws rods with a cross-link in the C1-2 interlaminar space (LC1-C3 + CL), (3) C1 and C3 lateral mass screw rods alone (negative control), and (4) C1 lateral mass and C2 pedicle screws rods augmented with C1-2 interspinous wire and graft (LC1-PC2, control group). RESULTS: Compared with the intact spine, each instrumented state significantly stabilized range of motion and lax zone at C1-2 (P < .001, 1-way repeated-measures analysis of variance). LC1-C3 + SW was equivalent to LC1-PC2 during flexion and lateral bending and superior to LC1-C3 + CL during lateral bending, while LC1-C3 + CL was equivalent to LC1-PC2 only during flexion. In all other comparisons, LC1-PC2 was superior to both techniques. CONCLUSION: From a biomechanical perspective, both C2 screw sparing techniques provided sufficient stability to be regarded as an alternative for C1-2 fixation. However, because normal motion across C2-3 is sacrificed, these constructs should be used in patients with unfavorable anatomy for standard fixations.

Biomechanical comparison of occipitoatlantal screw fixation techniques

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas C. Bambakidis ◽  
Iman Feiz-Erfan ◽  
Eric M. Horn ◽  
L. Fernando Gonzalez ◽  
Seungwon Baek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Segmental Motion ◽  
Lateral Mass ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Improved Stability ◽  
Fixation Techniques ◽  
Structural Graft ◽  
Lateral Mass Screws

Object The stability provided by 3 occipitoatlantal fixation techniques (occiput [Oc]–C1 transarticular screws, occipital keel screws rigidly interconnected with C-1 lateral mass screws, and suboccipital/sublaminar wired contoured rod) were compared. Methods Seven human cadaveric specimens received transarticular screws and 7 received occipital keel–C1 lateral mass screws. All specimens later underwent contoured rod fixation. All conditions were studied with and without placement of a structural graft wired between the skull base and C-1 lamina. Specimens were loaded quasistatically using pure moments to induce flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation while recording segmental motion optoelectronically. Flexibility was measured immediately postoperatively and after 10,000 cycles of fatigue. Results Application of Oc–C1 transarticular screws, with a wired graft, reduced the mean range of motion (ROM) to 3% of normal. Occipital keel–C1 lateral mass screws (also with graft) offered less stability than transarticular screws during extension and lateral bending (p < 0.02), reducing ROM to 17% of normal. The wired contoured rod reduced motion to 31% of normal, providing significantly less stability than either screw fixation technique. Fatigue increased motion in constructs fitted with transarticular screws, keel screws/lateral mass screw constructs, and contoured wired rods, by means of 19, 5, and 26%, respectively. In all constructs, adding a structural graft significantly improved stability, but the extent depended on the loading direction. Conclusions Assuming the presence of mild C1–2 instability, Oc–C1 transarticular screws and occipital keel–C1 lateral mass screws are approximately equivalent in performance for occipitoatlantal stabilization in promoting fusion. A posteriorly wired contoured rod is less likely to provide a good fusion environment because of less stabilizing potential and a greater likelihood of loosening with fatigue.

C1 Lateral Mass Fixation

Neurosurgery ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 66 (suppl_3) ◽  
pp. A153-A160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Praveen V. Mummaneni ◽  
Daniel C. Lu ◽  
Sanjay S. Dhall ◽  
Valli P. Mummaneni ◽  
Dean Chou
Keyword(s):  
Neck Pain ◽  
Visual Analog Scale ◽  
Complication Rate ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Lateral Mass ◽  
Lateral Mass Screw ◽  
Analog Scale ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Lateral Mass Screws

Abstract OBJECTIVE We review our experience and technique for C1 lateral mass screw fixation. We compare the results of 3 different constructs incorporating C1 lateral mass screws: occipitocervical (OC) constructs, C1–C2 constructs, and C1 to mid/low cervical constructs. METHODS We performed a retrospective chart review of 42 consecutive patients who underwent C1 lateral mass fixation by 2 of the authors (PVM and DC). The patient population consisted of 24 men and 18 women with a mean age of 64 years. Twenty-two patients had C1–C2 constructs. Twelve patients had constructs that started at C1 and extended to the mid/low cervical spine (one extended to T1). Eight patients underwent OC fusions incorporating C1 screws (2 of which were OC-thoracic constructs). All constructs were combined either with a C2 pars screw (38 patients), C2 translaminar screw (1 patient), or C3 lateral mass screw (3 patients). No C2 pedicle screws were used. Fusion was assessed using flexion-extension x-rays in all patients and computed tomographic scans in selected cases. Clinical outcomes were assessed with preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale neck pain scores and Nurick grading. The nuances of the surgical technique are reviewed, and a surgical video is included. RESULTS Two patients (5%) were lost to follow-up. The mean follow-up for the remaining patients was 2 years. During the follow-up period, there were 4 deaths (none of which were related to the surgery). For patients with follow-up, the visual analog scale neck pain score improved a mean of 3 points after surgery (P &lt; .001). For patients with myelopathy, the Nurick score improved by a mean of 1 grade after surgery (P &lt; .001). The postoperative complication rate was 12%. The complication rate was 38% in OC constructs, 17% in C1 to mid/low cervical constructs, and 0% for C1–C2 construct cases. Patients with OC constructs had the statistically highest rate of complications (P &lt; .001). Patients with C1 to mid/low cervical constructs had more complications than those with C1–C2 constructs (P &lt; .001). Of the 42 cases, there were 3 pseudoarthroses (1 in an OC case, 1 in a C1 to midcervical construct, and 1 in a C1–C2 construct). OC constructs had the highest risk of pseudoarthrosis (13%) (P &lt; .001). CONCLUSION Patients treated with C1 lateral mass fixation constructs have a high fusion rate, reduced neck pain, and improved neurologic function. Constructs using C1 lateral mass screws do not need to incorporate C2 pedicle screws. Constructs incorporating C1 lateral mass screws are effective when combined with C2 pars screws, C2 translaminar screws, and C3 lateral mass screws. Constructs using C1 screws are associated with a higher complication rate and a higher pseudoarthrosis rate if extended cranially to the occiput or if extended caudally below C2.

THE USE OF RIGID INTERNAL FIXATION IN THE SURGICAL MANAGEMENT OF CERVICAL SPONDYLOSIS

Neurosurgery ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 60 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S1-118-S1-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian K. Kwon ◽  
Alexander R. Vaccaro ◽  
Jonathan N. Grauer ◽  
John M. Beiner
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Internal Fixation ◽  
Surgical Management ◽  
Cervical Spondylosis ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Rigid Fixation ◽  
Lateral Mass ◽  
Regional Anatomy ◽  
Rigid Internal Fixation ◽  
Lateral Mass Screws

Abstract IN THE SURGICAL management of cervical spondylosis, the application of rigid internal fixation can enhance the immediate stability of the cervical spine. The sophistication of such internal fixation systems and the indications for their use are continuously evolving. A sound understanding of regional anatomy, biomechanics, and kinematics within the cervical spine is essential for the safe and effective application of internal fixation. Numerous options currently exist for anterior cervical plating systems; some lock the screws to the plate rigidly (constrained), whereas others allow for some rotational or translational motion between the screw and plate (semiconstrained). The role of anterior fixation in single and multilevel fusions is still the subject of some controversy. Long anterior cervical reconstructions may require additional posterior fixation to reliably promote fusion. Rigid fixation in the posterior cervical spine can be achieved with lateral mass screws or pedicle screws. Although lateral mass screws provide excellent fixation within the subaxial cervical spine, the regional anatomy of C2 and C7 often make it difficult to place such screws, and pedicle screws at these levels are advocated. Pedicle screws achieve fixation into both the anterior and posterior column and are arguably the most stable form of rigid internal fixation within the cervical spine. Familiarity with these internal fixation techniques can be an extremely valuable tool for the spine surgeon managing these degenerative disorders of the cervical spine.

Hybrid dynamic stabilization: a biomechanical assessment of adjacent and supraadjacent levels of the lumbar spine

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 232-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prasath Mageswaran ◽  
Fernando Techy ◽  
Robb W. Colbrunn ◽  
Tara F. Bonner ◽  
Robert F. McLain
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Industrial Robot ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Dynamic Stabilization ◽  
Follower Load ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Intact Specimen ◽  
Flexion Extension

Object The object of this study was to evaluate the effect of hybrid dynamic stabilization on adjacent levels of the lumbar spine. Methods Seven human spine specimens from T-12 to the sacrum were used. The following conditions were implemented: 1) intact spine; 2) fusion of L4–5 with bilateral pedicle screws and titanium rods; and 3) supplementation of the L4–5 fusion with pedicle screw dynamic stabilization constructs at L3–4, with the purpose of protecting the L3–4 level from excessive range of motion (ROM) and to create a smoother motion transition to the rest of the lumbar spine. An industrial robot was used to apply continuous pure moment (± 2 Nm) in flexion-extension with and without a follower load, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Intersegmental rotations of the fused, dynamically stabilized, and adjacent levels were measured and compared. Results In flexion-extension only, the rigid instrumentation at L4–5 caused a 78% decrease in the segment's ROM when compared with the intact specimen. To compensate, it caused an increase in motion at adjacent levels L1–2 (45.6%) and L2–3 (23.2%) only. The placement of the dynamic construct at L3–4 decreased the operated level's ROM by 80.4% (similar stability as the fusion at L4–5), when compared with the intact specimen, and caused a significant increase in motion at all tested adjacent levels. In flexion-extension with a follower load, instrumentation at L4–5 affected only a subadjacent level, L5–sacrum (52.0%), while causing a reduction in motion at the operated level (L4–5, −76.4%). The dynamic construct caused a significant increase in motion at the adjacent levels T12–L1 (44.9%), L1–2 (57.3%), and L5–sacrum (83.9%), while motion at the operated level (L3–4) was reduced by 76.7%. In lateral bending, instrumentation at L4–5 increased motion at only T12–L1 (22.8%). The dynamic construct at L3–4 caused an increase in motion at T12–L1 (69.9%), L1–2 (59.4%), L2–3 (44.7%), and L5–sacrum (43.7%). In axial rotation, only the placement of the dynamic construct at L3–4 caused a significant increase in motion of the adjacent levels L2–3 (25.1%) and L5–sacrum (31.4%). Conclusions The dynamic stabilization system displayed stability characteristics similar to a solid, all-metal construct. Its addition of the supraadjacent level (L3–4) to the fusion (L4–5) did protect the adjacent level from excessive motion. However, it essentially transformed a 1-level lumbar fusion into a 2-level lumbar fusion, with exponential transfer of motion to the fewer remaining discs.

Pedicle Screws Can be 4 Times Stronger Than Lateral Mass Screws for Insertion in the Midcervical Spine

2014 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 80-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zenya Ito ◽  
Kosaku Higashino ◽  
Satoshi Kato ◽  
Sung Soo Kim ◽  
Eugene Wong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Lateral Mass ◽  
Lateral Mass Screws

The cervical end of an occipitocervical fusion: a biomechanical evaluation of 3 constructs

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 296-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Finn ◽  
Daniel R. Fassett ◽  
Todd D. Mccall ◽  
Randy Clark ◽  
Andrew T. Dailey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tracking System ◽  
Plate Fixation ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Lateral Mass ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Cross Link ◽  
3D Tracking ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Biomechanical Evaluation ◽  
Rotation Motion

Object Stabilization with rigid screw/rod fixation is the treatment of choice for craniocervical disorders requiring operative stabilization. The authors compare the relative immediate stiffness for occipital plate fixation in concordance with transarticular screw fixation (TASF), C-1 lateral mass and C-2 pars screw (C1L-C2P), and C-1 lateral mass and C-2 laminar screw (C1L-C2L) constructs, with and without a cross-link. Methods Ten intact human cadaveric spines (Oc–C4) were prepared and mounted in a 7-axis spine simulator. Each specimen was precycled and then tested in the intact state for flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Motion was tracked using the OptoTRAK 3D tracking system. The specimens were then destabilized and instrumented with an occipital plate and TASF. The spine was tested with and without the addition of a cross-link. The C1L-C2P and C1L-C2L constructs were similarly tested. Results All constructs demonstrated a significant increase in stiffness after instrumentation. The C1L-C2P construct was equivalent to the TASF in all moments. The C1L-C2L was significantly weaker than the C1L-C2P construct in all moments and significantly weaker than the TASF in lateral bending. The addition of a cross-link made no difference in the stiffness of any construct. Conclusions All constructs provide significant immediate stability in the destabilized occipitocervical junction. Although the C1L-C2P construct performed best overall, the TASF was similar, and either one can be recommended. Decreased stiffness of the C1L-C2L construct might affect the success of clinical fusion. This construct should be reserved for cases in which anatomy precludes the use of the other two.

scholarly journals The use of intraoperative navigation for complex upper cervical spine surgery

2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. E5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kern H. Guppy ◽  
Indro Chakrabarti ◽  
Amit Banerjee
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Navigation System ◽  
Surgical Navigation ◽  
Spinal Instrumentation ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Upper Cervical Spine ◽  
Cervical Canal ◽  
Lateral Mass ◽  
Upper Cervical ◽  
Lateral Mass Screws

Imaging guidance using intraoperative CT (O-arm surgical imaging system) combined with a navigation system has been shown to increase accuracy in the placement of spinal instrumentation. The authors describe 4 complex upper cervical spine cases in which the O-arm combined with the StealthStation surgical navigation system was used to accurately place occipital screws, C-1 screws anteriorly and posteriorly, C-2 lateral mass screws, and pedicle screws in C-6. This combination was also used to navigate through complex bony anatomy altered by tumor growth and bony overgrowth. The 4 cases presented are: 1) a developmental deformity case in which the C-1 lateral mass was in the center of the cervical canal causing cord compression; 2) a case of odontoid compression of the spinal cord requiring an odontoidectomy in a patient with cerebral palsy; 3) a case of an en bloc resection of a C2–3 chordoma with instrumentation from the occiput to C-6 and placement of C-1 lateral mass screws anteriorly and posteriorly; and 4) a case of repeat surgery for a non-union at C1–2 with distortion of the anatomy and overgrowth of the bony structure at C-2.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document