Biomechanical evaluation of Caspar and Cervical Spine Locking Plate systems in a cadaveric model

1996 ◽  
Vol 84 (6) ◽  
pp. 1039-1045 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D. Clausen ◽  
Timothy C. Ryken ◽  
Vincent C. Traynelis ◽  
Paul D. Sawin ◽  
Franklin Dexter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Locking Plate ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Biomechanical Stability ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Two Systems ◽  
Biomechanical Evaluation ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Cadaveric Model

✓ There exist two markedly different instrumentation systems for the anterior cervical spine: the Cervical Spine Locking Plate (CSLP) system, which uses unicortical screws with a locking hub mechanism for attachment, and the Caspar Trapezial Plate System, which is secured with unlocked bicortical screws. The biomechanical stability of these two systems was evaluated in a cadaveric model of complete C5–6 instability. The immediate stability was determined in six loading modalities: flexion, extension, right and left lateral bending, and right and left axial rotation. Biomechanical stability was reassessed following fatigue with 5000 cycles of flexion-extension, and finally, the spines were loaded in flexion until the instrumentation failed. The Caspar system stabilized significantly in flexion before (p < 0.05) but not after fatigue, and it stabilized significantly in extension before (p < 0.01) and after fatigue (p < 0.01). The CSLP system stabilized significantly in flexion before (p < 0.01) but not after fatigue, and it did not stabilize in extension before or after fatigue. The moment needed to produce failure in flexion did not differ substantially between the two plating systems. The discrepancy in the biomechanical stability of these two systems may be due to differences in bone screw fixation.

A biomechanical comparison of the Rogers interspinous and the Lovely—Carl tension band wiring techniques for fixation of the cervical spine

2000 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-116
Author(s):  
Albert V. B. Brasil ◽  
Danilo G. Coelho ◽  
Tarcísio Eloy P. B. Filho ◽  
Fernando M. Braga
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Tension Band ◽  
Tension Band Wiring ◽  
Lesion Group ◽  
Percentage Increase ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Biomechanical Evaluation ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The authors conducted a biomechanical study in which they compared the uses of the Rogers interspinous and the Lovely-Carl tension band wiring techniques for internal fixation of the cervical spine. Method. An extensive biomechanical evaluation (stiffness in positive and negative rotations around the x, y, and z axes; range of motion in flexion—extension, bilateral axial rotation, and bilateral bending; and neutral zone in flexion—extension, bilateral axial rotation, and lateral bending to the right and to the left) was performed in two groups of intact calf cervical spines. After these initial tests, all specimens were subjected to a distractive flexion Stage 3 ligamentous lesion. Group 1 specimens then underwent surgical fixation by the Rogers technique, and Group 2 specimens underwent surgery by using the Lovely—Carl technique. After fixation, specimens were again submitted to the same biomechanical evaluation. The percentage increase or decrease between the pre- and postoperative parameters was calculated. These values were considered quantitative indicators of the efficacy of the techniques, and the efficacy of the two techniques was compared. Conclusions. Analysis of the findings demonstrated that in the spines treated with the Lovely—Carl technique less restriction of movement was produced without affecting stiffness, compared with those treated with the Rogers technique, thus making the Lovely—Carl technique clinically less useful.

Biomechanical comparison of anterior Caspar plate and three-level posterior fixation techniques in a human cadaveric model

1993 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent C. Traynelis ◽  
Paul A. Donaher ◽  
Robert M. Roach ◽  
H. Kojimoto ◽  
Vijay K. Goel
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Plate Fixation ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Anterior Plate ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Flexion Extension

✓ Traumatic cervical spine injuries have been successfully stabilized with plates applied to the anterior vertebral bodies. Previous biomechanical studies suggest, however, that these devices may not provide adequate stability if the posterior ligaments are disrupted. To study this problem, the authors simulated a C-5 teardrop fracture with posterior ligamentous instability in human cadaveric spines. This model was used to compare the immediate biomechanical stability of anterior cervical plating, from C-4 to C-6, to that provided by a posterior wiring construct over the same levels. Stability was tested in six modes of motion: flexion, extension, right and left lateral bending, and right and left axial rotation. The injured/plate-stabilized spines were more stable than the intact specimens in all modes of testing. The injured/posterior-wired specimens were more stable than the intact spines in axial rotation and flexion. They were not as stable as the intact specimens in the lateral bending or extension testing modes. The data were normalized with respect to the motion of the uninjured spine and compared using repeated measures of analysis of variance, the results of which indicate that anterior plating provides significantly more stability in extension and lateral bending than does posterior wiring. The plate was more stable than the posterior construct in flexion loading; however, the difference was not statistically significant. The two constructs provide similar stability in axial rotation. This study provides biomechanical support for the continued use of bicortical anterior plate fixation in the setting of traumatic cervical spine instability.

New anterior controllable antedisplacement and fusion surgery for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a biomechanical study

2022 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Keyword(s):  
Fatigue Loading ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Posterior Longitudinal Ligament ◽  
Cyclic Fatigue ◽  
Biomechanical Study ◽  
Biomechanical Stability ◽  
Loading Test ◽  
Crossover Effect ◽  
Flexion Extension

OBJECTIVE The traditional anterior approach for multilevel severe cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) is demanding and risky. Recently, a novel surgical procedure—anterior controllable antedisplacement and fusion (ACAF)—was introduced by the authors to deal with these problems and achieve better clinical outcomes. However, to the authors’ knowledge, the immediate and long-term biomechanical stability obtained after this procedure has never been evaluated. Therefore, the authors compared the postoperative biomechanical stability of ACAF with those of more traditional approaches: anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF). METHODS To determine and assess pre- and postsurgical range of motion (ROM) (2 Nm torque) in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation in the cervical spine, the authors collected cervical areas (C1–T1) from 18 cadaveric spines. The cyclic fatigue loading test was set up with a 3-Nm cycled load (2 Hz, 3000 cycles). All samples used in this study were randomly divided into three groups according to surgical procedures: ACDF, ACAF, and ACCF. The spines were tested under the following conditions: 1) intact state flexibility test; 2) postoperative model (ACDF, ACAF, ACCF) flexibility test; 3) cyclic loading (n = 3000); and 4) fatigue model flexibility test. RESULTS After operations were performed on the cadaveric spines, the segmental and total postoperative ROM values in all directions showed significant reductions for all groups. Then, the ROMs tended to increase during the fatigue test. No significant crossover effect was detected between evaluation time and operation method. Therefore, segmental and total ROM change trends were parallel among the three groups. However, the postoperative and fatigue ROMs in the ACCF group tended to be larger in all directions. No significant differences between these ROMs were detected in the ACDF and ACAF groups. CONCLUSIONS This in vitro biomechanical study demonstrated that the biomechanical stability levels for ACAF and ACDF were similar and were both significantly greater than that of ACCF. The clinical superiority of ACAF combined with our current results showed that this procedure is likely to be an acceptable alternative method for multilevel cervical OPLL treatment.

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 Biomechanical Evaluation of Unilateral Versus Bilateral C1 Lateral Mass-C2 Intralaminar Fixation

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nitin Bhatia ◽  
Asheen Rama ◽  
Brandon Sievers ◽  
Ryan Quigley ◽  
Michelle H. McGarry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Biomechanical Properties ◽  
Lateral Mass ◽  
Intact State ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Fixation Techniques ◽  
Rotation Stiffness ◽  
Biomechanical Evaluation ◽  
C2 Fixation

Study Design: Biomechanical, cadaveric study. Objectives: To compare the relative stiffness of unilateral C1 lateral mass-C2 intralaminar fixation to intact specimens and bilateral C1 lateral mass-C2 intralaminar constructs. Methods: The biomechanical integrity of a unilateral C1 lateral mass-C2 intralaminar screw construct was compared to intact specimens and bilateral C1 lateral mass-C2 intralaminar screw constructs. Five human cadaveric specimens were used. Range of motion and stiffness were tested to determine the stiffness of the constructs. Results: Unilateral fixation significantly decreased flexion/extension range of motion compared to intact ( P < .001) but did not significantly affect axial rotation ( P = .3) or bending range of motion ( P = .3). There was a significant decrease in stiffness in extension for both unilateral and bilateral fixation techniques compared to intact ( P = .04 and P = .03, respectively). There was also a significant decrease in stiffness for ipsilateral rotation for the unilateral construct compared to intact ( P = .007) whereas the bilateral construct significantly increased ipsilateral rotation stiffness compared to both intact and unilateral fixation ( P < .001). Conclusion: Bilateral constructs did show improved biomechanical properties compared to the unilateral constructs. However, unilateral C1-C2 fixation using a C1 lateral mass and C2 intralaminar screw-rod construct decreased range of motion and improved stiffness compared to the intact state with the exception of extension and ipsilateral rotation. Hence, a unilateral construct may be acceptable in clinical situations in which bilateral fixation is not possible, but an external orthosis may be necessary to achieve a fusion.

In vitro 3D-kinematics of the upper cervical spine: helical axis and simulation for axial rotation and flexion extension

2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre-Michel Dugailly ◽  
Stéphane Sobczak ◽  
Victor Sholukha ◽  
Serge Van Sint Jan ◽  
Patrick Salvia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Helical Axis ◽  
Upper Cervical Spine ◽  
3D Kinematics ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Upper Cervical

Anterior cervical fusion: a biomechanical comparison of 4 techniques

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 444-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Galbusera ◽  
Chiara M. Bellini ◽  
Francesco Costa ◽  
Roberto Assietti ◽  
Maurizio Fornari
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Locking Plate ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Finite Element Models ◽  
Interbody Cage ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Pure Moment ◽  
Fixation Type ◽  
Biomechanical Comparison

Object Cervical instrumented fusion is currently performed using several fixation methods. In the present paper, the authors compare the following 4 implantation methods: a stand-alone cage, a cage supplemented by an anterior locking plate, a cage supplemented by an anterior dynamic plate, and a dynamic combined plate–cage device. Methods Four finite element models of the C4–7 segments were built, each including a different instrumented fixation type at the C5–6 level. A compressive preload of 100 N combined with a pure moment of 2.5 Nm in flexion, extension, right lateral bending, and right axial rotation was applied to the 4 models. The segmental principal ranges of motion and the load shared by the interbody cage were obtained for each simulation. Results The stand-alone cage showed the lowest stabilization capability among the 4 configurations investigated, but it was still significant. The cage supplemented by the locking plate was very stiff in all directions. The 2 dynamic plate configurations reduced flexibility in all directions compared with the intact case, but they left significant mobility in the implanted segment. These configurations were able to share a significant part of the load (up to 40% for the combined plate–cage) through the posterior cage. The highest risk of subsidence was obtained with the model of the stand-alone cage. Conclusions Noticeable differences in the results were detected for the 4 configurations. The actual clinical relevance of these differences, currently considered not of critical importance, should be investigated by randomized clinical trials.

scholarly journals Comparison of the efficacy of three cervical collars in restricting cervical range of motion: A randomized study

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jae Guk Kim ◽  
Sung Hwan Bang ◽  
Gu Hyun Kang ◽  
Yong Soo Jang ◽  
Wonhee Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Cervical Spine Injury ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
The Other ◽  
Spine Injury ◽  
Cervical Range Of Motion ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Cervical Immobilization ◽  
The Difference

Background: The cervical collar has been used as a common device for the initial stabilization of the cervical spine. Although many cervical collars are commercially available, there is no consensus on which offers the greatest protection, with studies showing considerable variations in their ability to restrict cervical range of motion. The use of the XCollar (Emegear, Carpinteria, CA) has been known to decrease the risk of spinal cord injury by minimizing potential cervical spinal distraction. We compared XCollar with two other cervical collars commonly used for adult patients with cervical spine injury to evaluate the difference in effectiveness between the three cervical collars to restrict cervical range of motion. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the difference between the three cervical collars in their ability to restrict cervical range of motion. Method: A total of 30 healthy university students aged 21–25 years participated in this study. Participants with any cervical disease and symptoms were excluded. Three cervical collars were tested: Philadelphia® Collar, Stifneck® Select™ Collar, and XCollar. A digital camera and an image-analysis technique were used to evaluate cervical range of motion during flexion, extension, bilateral bending and bilateral axial rotation. Cervical range of motion was evaluated in both the unbraced and braced condition. Results: XCollar permitted less than a mean of 10° of movement during flexion, extension, bilateral bending and bilateral axial rotation. This was less than the movement permitted by the other two cervical collars. Conclusion: XCollar presented superior cervical immobilization compared to the other two commonly used cervical collars in this study. Thus, when cervical collar is considered for an adult patient with cervical spine injury, XCollar might be one of the considerate options as a cervical immobilization device.

Stabilizing effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages before and after cyclic loading

2000 ◽  
Vol 92 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Kettler ◽  
Hans-Joachim Wilke ◽  
Rupert Dietl ◽  
Matthias Krammer ◽  
Christianto Lumenta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cyclic Loading ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Stabilizing Effect ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The function of interbody fusion cages is to stabilize spinal segments primarily by distracting them as well as by allowing bone ingrowth and fusion. An important condition for efficient formation of bone tissue is achieving adequate spinal stability. However, the initial stability may be reduced due to repeated movements of the spine during everyday activity. Therefore, in addition to immediate stability, stability after cyclic loading is of remarkable relevance; however, this has not yet been investigated. The object of this study was to investigate the immediate stabilizing effect of three different posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages and to clarify the effect of cyclic loading on the stabilization. Methods. Before and directly after implantation of a Zientek, Stryker, or Ray posterior lumbar interbody fusion cage, 24 lumbar spine segment specimens were each evaluated in a spine tester. Pure lateral bending, flexion—extension, and axial rotation moments (± 7.5 Nm) were applied continuously. The motion in each specimen was measured simultaneously. The specimens were then loaded cyclically (40,000 cycles, 5 Hz) with an axial compression force ranging from 200 to 1000 N. Finally, they were tested once again in the spine tester. Conclusions. In general, a decrease of movement in all loading directions was noted after insertion of the Zientek and Ray cages and an increase of movement after implantation of a Stryker cage. In all three cage groups greater stability was demonstrated in lateral bending and flexion than in extension and axial rotation. Reduced stability during cyclic loading was observed in all three cage groups; however, loss of stability was most pronounced when the Ray cage was used.

Biomechanical comparison of anterior and posterior stabilization methods in atlantoaxial instability

2004 ◽  
Vol 100 (3) ◽  
pp. 277-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sung-Min Kim ◽  
T. Jesse Lim ◽  
Josemaria Paterno ◽  
Tae-Jin Hwang ◽  
Kun-Woo Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Atlantoaxial Instability ◽  
Fixation Method ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Biomechanical Stability ◽  
Transarticular Screw ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The authors compared the biomechanical stability of two anterior fixation procedures—anterior C1–2 Harms plate/screw (AHPS) fixation and the anterior C1–2 transarticular screw (ATS) fixation; and two posterior fixation procedures—the posterior C-1 lateral mass combined with C-2 pedicle screw/rod (PLM/APSR) fixation and the posterior C1–2 transarticular screw (PTS) fixation after destabilization. Methods. Sixteen human cervical spine specimens (Oc—C3) were tested in three-dimensional flexion—extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending motions after destabilization by using an atlantoaxial C1–2 instability model. In each loading mode, moments were applied to a maximum of 1.5 Nm, and the range of motion (ROM), neutral zone (NZ), and elastic zone (EZ) were determined and values compared using the intact spine, the destabilized spine, and the postfixation spine. The AHPS method produced inferior biomechanical results in flexion—extension and lateral bending modes compared with the intact spine. The lateral bending NZ and ROM for this method differed significantly from the other three fixation techniques (p < 0.05), although statistically significant differences were not obtained for all other values of ROM and NZ for the other three procedures. The remaining three methods restored biomechanical stability and improved it over that of the intact spine. Conclusions. The PLM/APSR fixation method was found to have the highest biomechanical stiffness followed by PTS, ATS, and AHPS fixation. The PLM/APSR fixation and AATS methods can be considered good procedures for stabilizing the atlantoaxial joints, although specific fixation methods are determined by the proper clinical and radiological characteristics in each patient.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document