Biomechanical analysis of Goel technique for C1–2 fusion

Object The Goel technique, in which C1–2 intraarticular spacers are used, may be performed to restore stability to a disrupted atlantoaxial complex in conjunction with the Harms technique of placing polyaxial screws and bilateral rods. However, it has yet to be determined biomechanically whether the addition of the C1–2 joint spacers increases the multiaxial rigidity of the fixation construct. The goal of this study was to quantify changes in multiaxial rigidity of the combined Goel-Harms technique with the addition of C1–2 intraarticular spacers. Methods Seven cadaveric cervical spines (occiput–C2) were submitted to nondestructive flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation tests in a material testing machine spine tester. The authors applied 1.5 Nm at a rate of 0.1 Nm/second and held it constant for 10 seconds. The specimens were loaded 3 times, and data were collected on the third cycle. Testing of the specimens was performed for the following groups: 1) intact (I); 2) with the addition of C-1 lateral mass/C-2 pedicle screws and rod system (I+SR); 3) with C1–2 joint capsule incision, decortication (2 mm on top and bottom of each joint [that is, the C-1 and C-2 surface) and addition of bilateral C1–2 intraarticular spacers at C1–2 junction to the screws and rods (I+SR+C); 4) after removal of the posterior rods and only the bilateral spacers in place (I+C); 5) after removal of spacers and further destabilization with simulated odontoidectomy for a completely destabilized case (D); 6) with addition of posterior rods to the destabilized case (D+SR); and 7) with addition of bilateral C1–2 intraarticular spacers at C1–2 junction to the destabilized case (D+SR+C). The motion of C-1 was measured by a 3D motion tracking system and the motion of C-2 was measured by the rotational sensor of the testing system. The range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ) across C-1 and C-2 were evaluated. Results For the intact spine test groups, the addition of screws/rods (I+SR) and screws/rods/cages (I+SR+C) significantly reduced ROM and NZ compared with the intact spine (I) for flexion-extension and axial rotation (p < 0.05) but not lateral bending (p > 0.05). The 2 groups were not significantly different from each other in any bending mode for ROM and NZ, but in the destabilized condition the addition of screws/rods (D+SR) and screws/rods/cages (D+SR+C) significantly reduced ROM and NZ compared with the destabilized spine (D) in all bending modes (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the addition of the C1–2 intraarticular spacers (D+SR+C) significantly reduced ROM (flexion-extension and axial rotation) and NZ (lateral bending) compared with the screws and rods alone (D+SR). Conclusions Study result indicated that both the Goel and Harms techniques alone and with the addition of the C1–2 intraarticular spacers to the Goel-Harms technique are advantageous for stabilizing the atlantoaxial segment. The Goel technique combined with placement of a screw/rod construct appears to result in additional construct rigidity beyond the screw/rod technique and appears to be more useful in very unstable cases.

Download Full-text

Biomechanical Analysis of Cortical Versus Pedicle Screw Fixation Stability in TLIF, PLIF, and XLIF Applications

Global Spine Journal ◽

10.1177/2192568218779991 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 9 (2) ◽

pp. 162-168 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Edward K. Nomoto ◽

Guy R. Fogel ◽

Alexandre Rasouli ◽

Justin V. Bundy ◽

Alexander W. Turner

Keyword(s):

Pedicle Screw ◽

Interbody Fusion ◽

Screw Fixation ◽

Pedicle Screws ◽

Axial Rotation ◽

Biomechanical Analysis ◽

Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽

Lateral Bending ◽

Cortical Screw ◽

Flexion Extension

Study Design: Cadaveric biomechanical study. Objectives: Medial-to-lateral trajectory cortical screws are of clinical interest due to the ability to place them through a less disruptive, medialized exposure compared with conventional pedicle screws. In this study, cortical and pedicle screw trajectory stability was investigated in single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) constructs. Methods: Eight lumbar spinal units were used for each interbody/screw trajectory combination. The following constructs were tested: TLIF + unilateral facetectomy (UF) + bilateral pedicle screws (BPS), TLIF + UF + bilateral cortical screws (BCS), PLIF + medial facetectomy (MF) + BPS, PLIF + bilateral facetectomy (BF) + BPS, PLIF + MF + BCS, PLIF + BF + BCS, XLIF + BPS, XLIF + BCS, and XLIF + bilateral laminotomy + BCS. Range of motion (ROM) in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation was assessed using pure moments. Results: All instrumented constructs were significantly more rigid than intact ( P < .05) in all test directions except TLIF + UF + BCS, PLIF + MF + BCS, and PLIF + BF + BCS in axial rotation. In general, XLIF and PLIF + MF constructs were more rigid (lowest ROM) than TLIF + UF and PLIF + BF constructs. In the presence of substantial iatrogenic destabilization (TLIF + UF and PLIF + BF), cortical screw constructs tended to be less rigid (higher ROM) than the same pedicle screw constructs in lateral bending and axial rotation; however, no statistically significant differences were found when comparing pedicle and cortical fixation for the same interbody procedures. Conclusions: Both cortical and pedicle trajectory screw fixation provided stability to the 1-level interbody constructs. Constructs with the least iatrogenic destabilization were most rigid. The more destabilized constructs showed less lateral bending and axial rotation rigidity with cortical screws compared with pedicle screws. Further investigation is warranted to understand the clinical implications of differences between constructs.

Download Full-text

Cortical screws used to rescue failed lumbar pedicle screw construct: a biomechanical analysis

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2014.10.spine14371 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 22 (2) ◽

pp. 166-172 ◽

Cited By ~ 37

Author(s):

Graham C. Calvert ◽

Brandon D. Lawrence ◽

Amir M. Abtahi ◽

Kent N. Bachus ◽

Darrel S. Brodke

Keyword(s):

Lumbar Spine ◽

Pedicle Screw ◽

Pedicle Screws ◽

Axial Rotation ◽

The Other ◽

Biomechanical Analysis ◽

Pullout Strength ◽

Lateral Bending ◽

Cortical Screw ◽

Flexion Extension

OBJECT Cortical trajectory screw constructs, developed as an alternative to pedicle screw fixation for the lumbar spine, have similar in vitro biomechanics. The possibility of one screw path having the ability to rescue the other in a revision scenario holds promise but has not been evaluated. The objective in this study was to investigate the biomechanical properties of traditional pedicle screws and cortical trajectory screws when each was used to rescue the other in the setting of revision. METHODS Ten fresh-frozen human lumbar spines were instrumented at L3–4, 5 with cortical trajectory screws and 5 with pedicle screws. Construct stiffness was recorded in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. The L-3 screw pullout strength was tested to failure for each specimen and salvaged with screws of the opposite trajectory. Mechanical stiffness was again recorded. The hybrid rescue trajectory screws at L-3 were then tested to failure. RESULTS Cortical screws, when used in a rescue construct, provided stiffness in flexion/extension and axial rotation similar to that provided by the initial pedicle screw construct prior to failure. The rescue pedicle screws provided stiffness similar to that provided by the primary cortical screw construct in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. In pullout testing, cortical rescue screws retained 60% of the original pedicle screw pullout strength, whereas pedicle rescue screws retained 65% of the original cortical screw pullout strength. CONCLUSIONS Cortical trajectory screws, previously studied as a primary mode of fixation, may also be used as a rescue option in the setting of a failed or compromised pedicle screw construct in the lumbar spine. Likewise, a standard pedicle screw construct may rescue a compromised cortical screw track. Cortical and pedicle screws each retain adequate construct stiffness and pullout strength when used for revision at the same level.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2012.6.spine111054 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 17 (3) ◽

pp. 232-242 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

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.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/spi/2008/9/9/296 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 9 (3) ◽

pp. 296-300 ◽

Cited By ~ 24

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.

Download Full-text

Biomechanical Analysis of an Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Pseudarthrosis Model Revised With Machined Interfacet Allograft Spacers

Global Spine Journal ◽

10.1177/2192568219884265 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 10 (8) ◽

pp. 973-981

Author(s):

Raymond J. Hah ◽

Ram Alluri ◽

Paul A. Anderson

Keyword(s):

Range Of Motion ◽

Study Design ◽

Axial Rotation ◽

Biomechanical Analysis ◽

Anterior Cervical Discectomy ◽

Lateral Bending ◽

Cervical Discectomy ◽

Single Level ◽

Flexion Extension ◽

Potential Applications

Study Design: Biomechanics study. Objectives: To evaluate the biomechanical advantage of interfacet allograft spacers in an unstable single-level and 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) pseudoarthrosis model. Methods: Nine single-level and 8 two-level ACDF constructs were tested. Range of motion in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) at 1.5 N m were collected in 4 testing configurations: (1) intact spine, (2) ACDF with interbody graft and plate/screw, (3) ACDF with interbody graft and plate/loosened screws (loose condition), and (4) ACDF with interbody graft and plate/loosened screws supplemented with interfacet allograft spacers (rescue condition). Results: All fixation configurations resulted in statistically significant decreases in range of motion in all bending planes compared with the intact spine ( P < .05). One Level. Performing ACDF with interbody graft and plate on the intact spine reduced FE, LB, and AR 60.0%, 64.9%, and 72.9%, respectively. Loosening the ACDF screws decreased these reductions to 40.9%, 44.6%, and 52.1%. The addition of interfacet allograft spacers to the loose condition increased these reductions to 74.0%, 84.1%, and 82.1%. Two Level. Performing ACDF with interbody graft and plate on the intact spine reduced FE, LB, and AR 72.0%, 71.1%, and 71.2%, respectively. Loosening the ACDF screws decreased these reductions to 55.4%, 55.3%, and 51.3%. The addition of interfacet allograft spacers to the loose condition significantly increased these reductions to 82.6%, 91.2%, and 89.3% ( P < .05). Conclusions: Supplementation of a loose ACDF construct (pseudarthrosis model) with interfacet allograft spacers significantly increases stability and has potential applications in treating cervical pseudarthrosis.

Download Full-text

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

Applied Sciences ◽

10.3390/app10207291 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Biomechanics of lateral lumbar interbody fusion constructs with lateral and posterior plate fixation

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2013.11.spine13617 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 20 (3) ◽

pp. 291-297 ◽

Cited By ~ 31

Author(s):

Guy R. Fogel ◽

Rachit D. Parikh ◽

Stephen I. Ryu ◽

Alexander W. L. Turner

Keyword(s):

Interbody Fusion ◽

Plate Fixation ◽

Spinous Process ◽

Pedicle Screws ◽

Axial Rotation ◽

Interbody Cage ◽

Lateral Bending ◽

Lateral Plate ◽

Flexion Extension ◽

Supplemental Fixation

Object Lumbar interbody fusion is indicated in the treatment of degenerative conditions. Laterally inserted interbody cages significantly decrease range of motion (ROM) compared with other cages. Supplemental fixation options such as lateral plates or spinous process plates have been shown to provide stability and to reduce morbidity. The authors of the current study investigate the in vitro stability of the interbody cage with a combination of lateral and spinous process plate fixation and compare this method to the established bilateral pedicle screw fixation technique. Methods Ten L1–5 specimens were evaluated using multidirectional nondestructive moments (± 7.5 N·m), with a custom 6 degrees-of-freedom spine simulator. Intervertebral motions (ROM) were measured optoelectronically. Each spine was evaluated under the following conditions at the L3–4 level: intact; interbody cage alone (stand-alone); cage supplemented with lateral plate; cage supplemented with ipsilateral pedicle screws; cage supplemented with bilateral pedicle screws; cage supplemented with spinous process plate; and cage supplemented with a combination of lateral plate and spinous process plate. Intervertebral rotations were calculated, and ROM data were normalized to the intact ROM data. Results The stand-alone laterally inserted interbody cage significantly reduced ROM with respect to the intact state in flexion-extension (31.6% intact ROM, p < 0.001), lateral bending (32.5%, p < 0.001), and axial rotation (69.4%, p = 0.002). Compared with the stand-alone condition, addition of a lateral plate to the interbody cage did not significantly alter the ROM in flexion-extension (p = 0.904); however, it was significantly decreased in lateral bending and axial rotation (p < 0.001). The cage supplemented with a lateral plate was not statistically different from bilateral pedicle screws in lateral bending (p = 0.579). Supplemental fixation using a spinous process plate was not significantly different from bilateral pedicle screws in flexion-extension (p = 0.476). The combination of lateral plate and spinous process plate was not statistically different from the cage supplemented with bilateral pedicle screws in all the loading modes (p ≥ 0.365). Conclusions A combination of lateral and spinous process plate fixation to supplement a laterally inserted interbody cage helps achieve rigidity in all motion planes similar to that achieved with bilateral pedicle screws.

Download Full-text

Dynamic lumbar pedicle screw-rod stabilization: in vitro biomechanical comparison with standard rigid pedicle screw-rod stabilization

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2009.9.spine0951 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 12 (2) ◽

pp. 183-189 ◽

Cited By ~ 27

Author(s):

Hakan Bozkuş ◽

Mehmet Şenoğlu ◽

Seungwon Baek ◽

Anna G. U. Sawa ◽

Ali Fahir Özer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Pedicle Screw ◽

Stress Shielding ◽

Pedicle Screws ◽

Axial Rotation ◽

Bending Moments ◽

Axial Loads ◽

Lateral Bending ◽

Flexion Extension ◽

Lumbar Stabilization

Object It is unclear how the biomechanics of dynamic posterior lumbar stabilization systems and traditional rigid pedicle screw-rod systems differ. This study examined the biomechanical response of a hinged-dynamic pedicle screw compared with a standard rigid screw used in a 1-level pedicle screw-rod construct. Methods Unembalmed human cadaveric L3–S1 segments were tested intact, after L4–5 discectomy, after rigid pedicle screw-rod fixation, and after dynamic pedicle screw-rod fixation. Specimens were loaded using pure moments to induce flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation while recording motion optoelectronically. Specimens were then loaded in physiological flexion-extension while applying 400 N of compression. Moment and force across instrumentation were recorded from pairs of strain gauges mounted on the interconnecting rods. Results The hinged-dynamic screws allowed an average of 160% greater range of motion during flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation than standard rigid screws (p < 0.03) but 30% less motion than normal. When using standard screws, bending moments and axial loads on the rods were greater than the bending moments and axial loads on the rods when using dynamic screws during most loading modes (p < 0.05). The axis of rotation shifted significantly posteriorly more than 10 mm from its normal position with both devices. Conclusions In a 1-level pedicle screw-rod construct, hinged-dynamic screws allowed a quantity of motion that was substantially closer to normal motion than that allowed by rigid pedicle screws. Both systems altered kinematics similarly. Less load was borne by the hinged screw construct, indicating that the hinged-dynamic screws allow less stress shielding than standard rigid screws.

Download Full-text

Biomechanics of Dynamic Rod Segments for Achieving Transitional Stiffness With Lumbosacral Fusion

Neurosurgery ◽

10.1227/neu.0000000000000009 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 73 (3) ◽

pp. 517-527 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Bruno C.R. Lazaro ◽

Phillip M. Reyes ◽

Anna G.U.S. Newcomb ◽

Ali S. Yaqoobi ◽

Leonardo B.C. Brasiliense ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Pedicle Screw ◽

Axial Rotation ◽

Rigid Fixation ◽

Lateral Bending ◽

Hybrid Fixation ◽

Flexion Extension ◽

Rod System ◽

Transition Level ◽

Intact Condition

Abstract BACKGROUND: Transitioning from rigid to flexible hardware at the distal rostral or caudal lumbar or lumbosacral level hypothetically maintains motion at the transition level and protects the transition level and intact adjacent levels from stresses caused by fusion. OBJECTIVE: To biomechanically compare transitional and rigid constructs with uninstrumented specimens in vitro. METHODS: Human cadaveric L2-S1 segments were tested (1) intact, (2) after L5-S1 rigid pedicle screw-rod fixation, (3) after L4-S1 rigid pedicle screw-rod fixation, and (4) after hybrid fixation rigidly spanning L5-S1 and dynamically spanning L4-L5. Pure moments (maximum 7.5 Nm) induced flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation while motion was recorded optoelectronically. Additionally, specimens were studied in flexion/extension with a 400-N compressive follower load. Strain gauges on laminae were used to extract facet loads. RESULTS: The range of motion at the transition segment (L4-L5) for the hybrid construct was significantly less than for the intact condition and significantly greater than for the rigid 2-level construct during lateral bending and axial rotation but not during flexion or extension. Sagittal axis of rotation at L4-L5 shifted significantly after rigid 2-level or hybrid fixation (P < .003) but shifted significantly farther posterior and rostral with rigid fixation (P < .02). Instrumentation altered L4-L5 facet load at more than the L3-L4 facet load. CONCLUSION: The effect of the dynamic rod segment on the kinematics of the transition level was less pronounced than that of a fully rigid construct in vitro with this particular rod system. This experimental model detected no biomechanical alterations at adjacent intact levels with hybrid or rigid systems.

Download Full-text

Atlantoaxial fixation using C1 posterior arch screws: feasibility study, morphometric data, and biomechanical analysis

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2018.8.spine18160 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 30 (3) ◽

pp. 314-322 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Gilbert Cadena ◽

Huy T. Duong ◽

Jonathan J. Liu ◽

Kee D. Kim

Keyword(s):

Biomechanical Testing ◽

Axial Rotation ◽

Biomechanical Analysis ◽

Posterior Arch ◽

Lateral Mass ◽

Morphometric Data ◽

Lateral Bending ◽

Freehand Technique ◽

Flexion Extension ◽

Low Incidence

OBJECTIVEC1–2 is a highly mobile complex that presents unique surgical challenges to achieving biomechanical rigidity and fusion. Posterior wiring methods have been largely replaced with segmental constructs using the C1 lateral mass, C1 pedicle, C2 pars, and C2 pedicle. Modifications to reduce surgical morbidity led to the development of C2 laminar screws. The C1 posterior arch has been utilized mostly as a salvage technique, but recent data indicate that this method provides significant rigidity in flexion-extension and axial rotation. The authors performed biomechanical testing of a C1 posterior arch screw (PAS)/C2 pars screw construct, collected morphometric data from a population of 150 CT scans, and performed a feasibility study of a freehand C1 PAS technique in 45 cadaveric specimens.METHODSCervical spine CT scans from 150 patients were analyzed to determine the average C1 posterior tubercle thickness and size of C1 posterior arches. Eight cadavers were used to compare biomechanical stability of intact specimens, C1 lateral mass/C2 pars screw, and C1 PAS/C2 pars screw constructs. Paired comparisons were made using repeated-measures ANOVA and Holm-Sidak tests. Forty-five cadaveric specimens were used to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of the C1 PAS freehand technique.RESULTSMorphometric data showed the average craniocaudal thickness of the C1 posterior tubercle was 12.3 ± 1.94 mm. Eight percent (12/150) of cases showed thin posterior tubercles or midline defects. Average posterior arch thickness was 6.1 ± 1.1 mm and right and left average posterior arch length was 28.7 mm ± 2.53 mm and 28.9 ± 2.29 mm, respectively. Biomechanical testing demonstrated C1 lateral mass/C2 pars and C1 PAS/C2 pars constructs significantly reduced motion in flexion-extension and axial rotation compared with intact specimens (p < 0.05). The C1 lateral mass/C2 pars screw construct provided significant rigidity in lateral bending (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the two constructs in flexion-extension, lateral bending, or axial rotation. Of the C1 posterior arches, 91.3% were successfully cannulated using a freehand technique with a low incidence of cortical breach (4.4%).CONCLUSIONSThis biomechanical analysis indicates equivalent stability of the C1 PAS/C2 pars screw construct compared with a traditional C1 lateral mass/C2 pars screw construct. Both provide significant rigidity in flexion-extension and axial rotation. Feasibility testing in 45 cadaveric specimens indicates a high degree of accuracy with low incidence of cortical breach. These findings are supported by a separate radiographic morphometric analysis.

Download Full-text