Skip to main content
main-content

29.08.2017 | Orthopaedic Surgery | Ausgabe 10/2017

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 10/2017

Biomechanical study of novel unilateral C1 posterior arch screws and C2 laminar screws combined with an ipsilateral crossed C1–C2 pedicle screw–rod fixation for atlantoaxial instability

Zeitschrift:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery > Ausgabe 10/2017
Autoren:
Kai Shen, Zhongliang Deng, Junsong Yang, Chao Liu, Ranxi Zhang

Abstract

Introduction

Current surgical methods to treat atlantoaxial instability pose potential risks to the surrounding blood vessels and nerves of operative approach. Therefore, more secure and highly effective methods are expected. This study sought to assess the biomechanical efficacy of a novel unilateral double screw–rod fixation system by comparing with traditional and emerging fixation methods in cadaveric models.

Materials and methods

Ligamentous cervical spines (C0–C7) from ten fresh cadaveric specimens were used to complete range of motion (ROM) test in their intact condition (control group), destabilization, and stabilization after different fixations, including unilateral C1–C2 pedicle screws (PS) with a screw–rod system (Group A), bilateral C1–C2 PS with screw–rod systems (Group B), unilateral C1 posterior arch screws (PAS) and C2 laminar screws (LS) combined with an ipsilateral paralleled C1–C2 PS–rod (Group C), and unilateral C1 PAS and C2 LS combined with an ipsilateral crossed C1–C2 PS–rod (Group D). After that, pullout strength test was performed between PS and PAS using ten isolated atlas vertebras.

Results

All fixation groups reduced flexibility in all directions compared with both control group and destabilization group. Furthermore, comparisons among different fixation groups showed that bilateral C1–C2 PS–rod (Group B), unilateral C1 PAS + C2 LS combined with an ipsilateral paralleled C1–C2 PS–rod (Group C) and unilateral C1 PAS + C2 LS combined with an ipsilateral crossed C1–C2 PS–rod (Group D) could provide a better stability, respectively, in all directions than unilateral C1–C2 PS–rod (Group A). However, no statistical significance was observed among Groups B, C, and D. Data from pullout strength test showed that both C1 PS (585 ± 53 N) and PAS (463 ± 49 N) could provide high fixed strength, although PS was better (P = 0.009).

Conclusion

The surgical technique of unilateral C1 PAS + C2 LS combined with a ipsilateral crossed C1–C2 PS–rod fixation could provide a better stability than the traditional unilateral PS–rod fixation and a same stability as bilateral PS–rod fixation, but with less risk of neurovascular injury. Therefore, this new technique may provide novel insight for an alternative of atlantoaxial instability treatment.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Jetzt e.Med zum Sonderpreis bestellen!

Sichern Sie sich jetzt Ihr e.Med-Abo und sparen Sie 50 %!

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2017

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 10/2017 Zur Ausgabe
  1. Das kostenlose Testabonnement läuft nach 14 Tagen automatisch und formlos aus. Dieses Abonnement kann nur einmal getestet werden.