scholarly journals Biomechanical evaluation of lumbar pedicle screws in spondylolytic vertebrae: comparison of fixation strength between the traditional trajectory and a cortical bone trajectory

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 910-915 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keitaro Matsukawa ◽  
Yoshiyuki Yato ◽  
Hideaki Imabayashi ◽  
Naobumi Hosogane ◽  
Takashi Asazuma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cortical Bone ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Fixation Strength ◽  
Isthmic Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Pullout Strength ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Cortical Bone Trajectory ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Flexion Extension

OBJECTIVE In the management of isthmic spondylolisthesis, the pedicle screw system is widely accepted surgical strategy; however, there are few reports on the biomechanical behavior of pedicle screws in spondylolytic vertebrae. The purpose of the present study was to compare fixation strength between pedicle screws inserted through the traditional trajectory (TT) and those inserted through a cortical bone trajectory (CBT) in spondylolytic vertebrae by computational simulation. METHODS Finite element models of spondylolytic and normal vertebrae were created from CT scans of 17 patients with adult isthmic spondylolisthesis (mean age 54.6 years, 10 men and 7 women). Each vertebral model was implanted with pedicle screws using TT and CBT techniques and compared between two groups. First, fixation strength of a single screw was evaluated by measuring axial pullout strength. Next, vertebral fixation strength of a paired-screw construct was examined by applying forces simulating flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation to vertebrae. RESULTS Fixation strengths of TT screws showed a nonsignificant difference between the spondylolytic and the normal vertebrae (p = 0.31–0.81). Fixation strength of CBT screws in the spondylolytic vertebrae demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in pullout strength (21.4%, p < 0.01), flexion (44.1%, p < 0.01), extension (40.9%, p < 0.01), lateral bending (38.3%, p < 0.01), and axial rotation (28.1%, p < 0.05) compared with those in the normal vertebrae. In the spondylolytic vertebrae, no statistically significant difference was observed for pullout strength between TT and CBT (p = 0.90); however, the CBT construct showed lower vertebral fixation strength in flexion (39.0%, p < 0.01), extension (35.6%, p < 0.01), lateral bending (50.7%, p < 0.01), and axial rotation (59.3%, p < 0.01) compared with the TT construct. CONCLUSIONS CBT screws are less optimal for stabilizing the spondylolytic vertebra due to their lower fixation strength compared with TT screws.

scholarly journals Biomechanical evaluation of the fixation strength of lumbar pedicle screws using cortical bone trajectory: a finite element study

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 471-478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keitaro Matsukawa ◽  
Yoshiyuki Yato ◽  
Hideaki Imabayashi ◽  
Naobumi Hosogane ◽  
Takashi Asazuma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element ◽  
Cortical Bone ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Fixation Strength ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Cortical Bone Trajectory ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Flexion And Extension ◽  
Multidirectional Loading

OBJECT Cortical bone trajectory (CBT) maximizes thread contact with the cortical bone surface and provides increased fixation strength. Even though the superior stability of axial screw fixation has been demonstrated, little is known about the biomechanical stiffness against multidirectional loading or its characteristics within a unit construct. The purpose of the present study was to quantitatively evaluate the anchorage performance of CBT by the finite element (FE) method. METHODS Thirty FE models of L-4 vertebrae from human spines (mean age [± SD] 60.9 ± 18.7 years, 14 men and 16 women) were computationally created and pedicle screws were placed using the traditional trajectory (TT) and CBT. The TT screw was 6.5 mm in diameter and 40 mm in length, and the CBT screw was 5.5 mm in diameter and 35 mm in length. To make a valid comparison, the same shape of screw was inserted into the same pedicle in each subject. First, the fixation strength of a single pedicle screw was compared by axial pullout and multidirectional loading tests. Next, vertebral fixation strength within a construct was examined by simulating the motions of flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. RESULTS CBT demonstrated a 26.4% greater mean pullout strength (POS; p = 0.003) than TT, and also showed a mean 27.8% stronger stiffness (p < 0.05) during cephalocaudal loading and 140.2% stronger stiffness (p < 0.001) during mediolateral loading. The CBT construct had superior resistance to flexion and extension loading and inferior resistance to lateral bending and axial rotation. The vertebral fixation strength of the construct was significantly correlated with bone mineral density of the femoral neck and the POS of a single screw. CONCLUSIONS CBT demonstrated superior fixation strength for each individual screw and sufficient stiffness in flexion and extension within a construct. The TT construct was superior to the CBT construct during lateral bending and axial rotation.

scholarly journals Is a cross-connector beneficial for single level traditional or cortical bone trajectory pedicle screw instrumentation?

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. e0253076
Author(s):  
Frédéric Cornaz ◽  
Jonas Widmer ◽  
Marie-Rosa Fasser ◽  
Jess Gerrit Snedeker ◽  
Keitaro Matsukawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cortical Bone ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Cortical Bone Trajectory ◽  
Single Level ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Human Cadavers ◽  
Minimal Reduction

The cortical bone trajectory (CBT) has been introduced with the aim of better screw hold, however, screw-rod constructs with this trajectory might provide less rigidity in lateral bending (LB) and axial rotation (AR) compared to the constructs with the traditional trajectory (TT). Therefore, the addition of a horizontal cross-connector could be beneficial in counteracting this possible inferiority. The aim of this study was to compare the primary rigidity of TT with CBT screw-rod constructs and to quantify the effect of cross-connector-augmentation in both. Spines of four human cadavers (T9 –L5) were cropped into 15 functional spine units (FSU). Eight FSUs were instrumented with TT and seven FSUs with CBT pedicle screws. The segments were tested in six loading directions in three configurations: uninstrumented, instrumented with and without cross-connector. The motion between the cranial and caudal vertebra was recorded. The range of motion (ROM) between the CBT and the TT group did not differ significantly in either configuration. Cross-connector -augmentation did reduce the ROM in AR (16.3%, 0.27°, p = 0.02), LB (2.9%, 0.07°, p = 0.03) and flexion-extension FE (2.3%, 0.04°, p = 0.02) for the TT group and in AR (20.6%, 0.31°, p = 0.01) for the CBT-group. The primary rigidity of TT and CBT single level screw-rod constructs did not show significant difference. The minimal reduction of ROM due to cross-connector-augmentation seems clinically not relevant. Based on the findings of these study there is no increased necessity to use a cross-connector in a CBT-construct.

scholarly journals Biomechanical Evaluation of Cortical Bone Trajectory Fixation with Traditional Pedicle Screw in the Lumbar Spine: A Finite Element Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (22) ◽  
pp. 10583
Author(s):  
Kuo-Chih Su ◽  
Kun-Hui Chen ◽  
Chien-Chou Pan ◽  
Cheng-Hung Lee
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Cortical Bone ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Spinal Surgery ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Element Model ◽  
Cortical Bone Trajectory ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Flexion Extension

Cortical bone trajectory (CBT) is increasingly used in spinal surgery. Although there are many biomechanical studies, the biomechanical effect of CBT in combination with traditional pedicle screws is not detailed. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the traditional pedicle screw and CBT screw implantation on the lumbar spine using finite element methods. Based on the combination of the traditional pedicle screw and the CBT system implanted into the lumbar spine, four finite element spinal lumbar models were established. The models were given four different load conditions (flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation), and the deformation and stress distribution on the finite element model were observed. The results show that there was no significant difference in the structural stability of the lumbar spine model between the traditional pedicle screw system and the CBT system. In addition, CBT may reduce stress on the endplate. Different movements performed by the model may have significant biomechanical effects on the spine and screw system. Clinical spinal surgeons may also consider using the CBT system in revision spinal surgery, which may contribute to smaller wounds.

scholarly journals Biomechanical Analysis of Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Versus Bone Cement Screw for Fixation in Porcine Spinal Low Bone Mass Model

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yifan Li ◽  
Wei Xu ◽  
Silian Wang ◽  
Liwei Chen ◽  
Zhangpeng Shi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Mass ◽  
Bone Cement ◽  
Cortical Bone ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Low Bone Mass ◽  
Cortical Bone Trajectory ◽  
Pull Out ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Insertional Torque

Abstract PurposeTo compare the biomechanics of cortical bone trajectory screw(CBT) and bone cement screw(BC) in isolated porcine spinal low bone mass model.MethodTen porcine spines with 3 segments were treated with EDTA decalcification. After 8 weeks, all the models met the criteria of low bone mass.Ten specimens were randomly divided into two groups, one group was implanted with CBT screw(CBT group) and the other group was implanted with bone cement screw(BC group).The biomechanical material testing machine was used to compare the porcine spine activities of the two groups in flexion, extension, bending and axial rotation, and then insertional torque,pull-out force and anti-compression force of two groups were compared.Independent-sample t test was used for comparison between groups.ResultTen 3 segments porcine spine models with low bone mass were established, the bone mineral density of all models was lower than 0.75g/cm2. The flexion, extension, bending and axial rotation angle of CBT group and BC group respectively were 7.1±1.3°,4.3±0.8°,3.4±0.8°,6.8±0.7°and 6.4±0.8°,4.5±0.5°,3.5±0.5°,6.8±0.8°,there was no significant difference between the two groups,P＞0.05.However, there were significant differences between the two groups and the control group,P＜0.01.The insertional torque of the CBT group and BC group respectively were 0.43±0.09N-m and 0.30±0.07N-m (P=0.03), and the screw pull-out force were 462.67±72.51N and 325.60±77.27N (P=0.021), respectively. There were significant differences between the two groups.The anti-compression forces between the two groups were 3561.81±522.7N and 3586.80±607.42N, respectively, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P =0.946).ConclusionThe insertional torque and pull-out force of the CBT were higher than those of the BC in the isolated low bone porcine spine model, and the range of motion and anti-compression ability of model were similar between the two fixation methods.

scholarly journals Biomechanical evaluation of lateral lumbar interbody fusion with secondary augmentation

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 720-726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco T. Reis ◽  
Phillip M. Reyes ◽  
Idris Altun ◽  
Anna G. U. S. Newcomb ◽  
Vaneet Singh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Supplemental Fixation ◽  
The Stability

OBJECTIVE Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has emerged as a popular method for lumbar fusion. In this study the authors aimed to quantify the biomechanical stability of an interbody implant inserted using the LLIF approach with and without various supplemental fixation methods, including an interspinous plate (IP). METHODS Seven human cadaveric L2–5 specimens were tested intact and in 6 instrumented conditions. The interbody implant was intended to be used with supplemental fixation. In this study, however, the interbody was also tested without supplemental fixation for a relative comparison of these conditions. The instrumented conditions were as follows: 1) interbody implant without supplemental fixation (LLIF construct); and interbody implant with supplemental fixation performed using 2) unilateral pedicle screws (UPS) and rod (LLIF + UPS construct); 3) bilateral pedicle screws (BPS) and rods (LLIF + BPS construct); 4) lateral screws and lateral plate (LP) (LLIF + LP construct); 5) interbody LP and IP (LLIF + LP + IP construct); and 6) IP (LLIF + IP construct). Nondestructive, nonconstraining torque (7.5 Nm maximum) induced flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, whereas 3D specimen range of motion (ROM) was determined optoelectronically. RESULTS The LLIF construct reduced ROM by 67% in flexion, 52% in extension, 51% in lateral bending, and 44% in axial rotation relative to intact specimens (p < 0.001). Adding BPS to the LLIF construct caused ROM to decrease by 91% in flexion, 82% in extension and lateral bending, and 74% in axial rotation compared with intact specimens (p < 0.001), providing the greatest stability among the constructs. Adding UPS to the LLIF construct imparted approximately one-half the stability provided by LLIF + BPS constructs, demonstrating significantly smaller ROM than the LLIF construct in all directions (flexion, p = 0.037; extension, p < 0.001; lateral bending, p = 0.012) except axial rotation (p = 0.07). Compared with the LLIF construct, the LLIF + LP had a significant reduction in lateral bending (p = 0.012), a moderate reduction in axial rotation (p = 0.18), and almost no benefit to stability in flexion-extension (p = 0.86). The LLIF + LP + IP construct provided stability comparable to that of the LLIF + BPS. The LLIF + IP construct provided a significant decrease in ROM compared with that of the LLIF construct alone in flexion and extension (p = 0.002), but not in lateral bending (p = 0.80) and axial rotation (p = 0.24). No significant difference was seen in flexion, extension, or axial rotation between LLIF + BPS and LLIF + IP constructs. CONCLUSIONS The LLIF construct that was tested significantly decreased ROM in all directions of loading, which indicated a measure of inherent stability. The LP significantly improved the stability of the LLIF construct in lateral bending only. Adding an IP device to the LLIF construct significantly improves stability in sagittal plane rotation. The LLIF + LP + IP construct demonstrated stability comparable to that of the gold standard 360° fixation (LLIF + BPS).

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

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 166-172 ◽  
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.

Biomechanics of C-7 transfacet screw fixation

2009 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 338-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric M. Horn ◽  
Phillip M. Reyes ◽  
Seungwon Baek ◽  
Mehmet Senoglu ◽  
Nicholas Theodore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Normal Condition ◽  
Small Diameter ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Screw Insertion ◽  
Loading Mode ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Flexion Extension

Object The small diameter of the pedicle can make C-7 pedicle screw insertion dangerous. Although transfacet screws have been studied biomechanically when used in pinning joints, they have not been well studied when used as part of a C7–T1 screw/rod construct. The authors therefore compared C7–T1 fixation using a C-7 transfacet screw/T-1 pedicle screw construct with a construct composed of pedicle screws at both levels. Methods Each rigid posterior screw/rod construct was placed in 7 human cadaveric C6–T2 specimens (14 total). Specimens were tested in normal condition, after 2-column instability, and once fixated. Nondestructive, nonconstraining pure moments (maximum 1.5 Nm) were applied to induce flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation while recording 3D motion optoelectronically. The entire construct was then loaded to failure by dorsal linear force. Results There was no significant difference in angular range of motion between the 2 instrumented groups during any loading mode (p > 0.11, nonpaired t-tests). Both constructs reduced motion to < 2° in any direction and allowed significantly less motion than in the normal condition. The C-7 facet screw/T-1 pedicle screw construct allowed a small but significantly greater lax zone than the pedicle screw/rod construct during lateral bending, and it failed under significantly less load than the pedicle screw/rod construct (p < 0.001). Conclusions When C-7 transfacet screws are connected to T-1 pedicle screws, they provide equivalent stability of constructs formed by pedicle screws at both levels. Although less resistant to failure, the transfacet screw construct should be a viable alternative in patients with healthy bone.

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.

Biomechanical analysis of Goel technique for C1–2 fusion

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 639-646 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Park ◽  
Justin K. Scheer ◽  
T. Jesse Lim ◽  
Vedat Deviren ◽  
Christopher P. Ames
Keyword(s):  
Motion Tracking ◽  
Tracking System ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Rod System ◽  
Harms Technique

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document