Restabilization of the Occipitocervical Junction After a Complete Unilateral Condylectomy: A Biomechanical Comparison of Unilateral and Bilateral Fixation Techniques

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilyas M Eli ◽  
Michael Karsy ◽  
Darrel S Brodke ◽  
Kent N Bachus ◽  
William T Couldwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biomechanical Testing ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Neurological Injury ◽  
Occipital Condyle ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Fixation Techniques ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Biomechanical Comparison

Abstract BACKGROUND Occipitocervical instability may result from transcondylar resection of the occipital condyle. Initially, patients may be able to maintain a neutral alignment but severe occipitoatlantal subluxation may subsequently occur, with cranial settling, spinal cord kinking, and neurological injury. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the ability of posterior fixation constructs to prevent progression to severe deformity after radical unilateral condylectomy. METHODS Eight human cadaveric specimens (Oc-C2) underwent biomechanical testing to compare stiffness under physiological loads (1.5 N m). A complete unilateral condylectomy was performed to destabilize one Oc-C1 joint, and the contralateral joint was left intact. Unilateral Oc-C1 or Oc-C2 constructs on the resected side and bilateral Oc-C1 or Oc-C2 constructs were tested. RESULTS The bilateral Oc-C2 construct provided the greatest stiffness, but the difference was only statistically significant in certain planes of motion. The unilateral constructs had similar stiffness in lateral bending, but the unilateral Oc-C1 construct was less stiff in axial rotation and flexion-extension than the unilateral Oc-C2 construct. The bilateral Oc-C2 construct was stiffer than the unilateral Oc-C2 construct in axial rotation and lateral bending, but there was no difference between these constructs in flexion-extension. CONCLUSION Patients who undergo a complete unilateral condylectomy require close surveillance for occipitocervical instability. A bilateral Oc-C2 construct provides suitable biomechanical strength, which is superior to other constructs. A unilateral construct decreases abnormal motion but lacks the stiffness of a bilateral construct. However, given that most patients undergo a partial condylectomy and only a small proportion of patients develop instability, there may be scenarios in which a unilateral construct may be appropriate, such as for temporary internal stabilization.

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.

Biomechanical Comparison of Four C1 to C2 Rigid Fixative Techniques: Anterior Transarticular, Posterior Transarticular, C1 to C2 Pedicle, and C1 to C2 Intralaminar Screws

Neurosurgery ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 516-521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samir B. Lapsiwala ◽  
Paul A. Anderson ◽  
Ashish Oza ◽  
Daniel K. Resnick
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Transarticular Screw ◽  
Transarticular Screw Fixation ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Fixation Techniques ◽  
Biomechanical Comparison ◽  
Cable Fixation

Abstract OBJECTIVE: We performed a biomechanical comparison of several C1 to C2 fixation techniques including crossed laminar (intralaminar) screw fixation, anterior C1 to C2 transarticular screw fixation, C1 to 2 pedicle screw fixation, and posterior C1 to C2 transarticular screw fixation. METHODS: Eight cadaveric cervical spines were tested intact and after dens fracture. Four different C1 to C2 screw fixation techniques were tested. Posterior transarticular and pedicle screw constructs were tested twice, once with supplemental sublaminar cables and once without cables. The specimens were tested in three modes of loading: flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. All tests were performed in load and torque control. Pure bending moments of 2 nm were applied in flexion-extension and lateral bending, whereas a 1 nm moment was applied in axial rotation. Linear displacements were recorded from extensometers rigidly affixed to the C1 and C2 vertebrae. Linear displacements were reduced to angular displacements using trigonometry. RESULTS: Adding cable fixation results in a stiffer construct for posterior transarticular screws. The addition of cables did not affect the stiffness of C1 to C2 pedicle screw constructs. There were no significant differences in stiffness between anterior and posterior transarticular screw techniques, unless cable fixation was added to the posterior construct. All three posterior screw constructs with supplemental cable fixation provide equal stiffness with regard to flexion-extension and axial rotation. C1 lateral mass-C2 intralaminar screw fixation restored resistance to lateral bending but not to the same degree as the other screw fixation techniques. CONCLUSION: All four screw fixation techniques limit motion at the C1 to 2 articulation. The addition of cable fixation improves resistance to flexion and extension for posterior transarticular screw fixation.

scholarly journals A biomechanical comparison of 3 different posterior fixation techniques for 2-level lumbar spinal disorders

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fubing Liu ◽  
Zhenzhou Feng ◽  
Tianze Liu ◽  
Qinming Fei ◽  
Chun Jiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Spinal Disorders ◽  
Intact State ◽  
Axial Torsion ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Fixation Techniques ◽  
Lumbar Spinal ◽  
Biomechanical Comparison

OBJECT This study sought to make a biomechanical comparison of 3 different posterior fixation techniques for 2-level lumbar spinal disorders. METHODS Eight fresh-frozen human cadaver lumbar spines (4 from L-1 to L-5, 4 from L-1 to S-1) were tested by applying pure moments of ± 8 Nm. Each specimen was first tested intact, and then the left facetectomies of L3–4 and L4–5 were performed to establish an unstable condition without removal of discs. Three instrumentation systems were then tested randomly: unilateral pedicle screw (UPS), UPS with contralateral translaminar facet screw (UPSFS), and bilateral pedicle screw (BPS). The range of motion (ROM) and the neutral zone (NZ) of L3–5 were measured. RESULTS All fixation types could reduce the ROM of L3–5 significantly in flexion, extension, and lateral bending, compared with the intact state. In axial torsion, only BPS reduced the ROM significantly, compared with the intact state. The UPSFS technique provided intermediate stability, which was superior to the UPS in flexion-extension and lateral bending, and inferior to the BPS in lateral bending. Compared with the intact state, the NZs decreased significantly for UPS, UPSFS, and BPS in flexion-extension, while not significantly in lateral bending and axial torsion. CONCLUSIONS In this study, among the 3 fixation techniques, BPS offered the highest stability, UPSFS provided intermediate stability, and UPS was the least stable for 2-level lumbar spinal disorders. UPSFS appeared to be able to offer a less invasive choice than BPS in well-selected patients with 2-level lumbar spinal disorders.

SPIRE spinous process stabilization plate: biomechanical evaluation of a novel technology

2006 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy C. Wang ◽  
David Spenciner ◽  
James C. Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Spinous Process ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Biomechanical Properties ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Fixation Techniques ◽  
Unilateral Pedicle Screw

Object The authors studied the biomechanical properties of a novel spinous process stabilization plate (CD HORIZON SPIRE Spinal System) and present the results in comparison with those of other posterior fixation methods. Methods Ten functional cadaveric lumbar segments were subjected to nondestructive quasistatic loading forces in 10 different conditions: intact, destabilized (discectomy), fitted with spinous process plate (SPP) alone, with anterior-column support (ACS) alone, ACS with SPP, ACS with posterior translaminar facet screw (PTFS) fixation, ACS with unilateral pedicle screw and rod (UPSR) fixation, ACS with bilateral pedicle screw and rod (BPSR) fixation, UPSR alone, or BPSR alone. Stiffness and range of motion (ROM) data were compared using a repeated-measures, one-way analysis of variance. The construct with greatest mean limitation of flexion–extension ROM was ACS/SPP at 4.14° whereas it was 5.75° for ACS/UPSR fixation, 5.03° for ACS/BPSR fixation, and 10.13° for the intact spine. The SPIRE plate alone also provided greater flexion and extension stiffness, with less ROM than other posterior stabilization options. Fixation with BPSR with or without ACS resulted in the stiffest construct in lateral bending and axial rotation. The SPP and UPSR fixation groups were equivalent in resisting lateral bending and axial rotation forces with or without ACS. Conclusions The SPIRE plate effectively stabilized the spine, and the test results compare favorably with other fixation techniques that are more time consuming to perform and have greater inherent risks.

Biomechanical Consequences of Cervical Spondylectomy Versus Corpectomy

2008 ◽  
Vol 63 (suppl_4) ◽  
pp. ONS303-ONS308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Şeref Doğan ◽  
Seungwon Baek ◽  
Volker K.H. Sonntag ◽  
Neil R. Crawford
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Spinal Stability ◽  
Angular Range ◽  
Anterior Instrumentation ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Cervical Corpectomy ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Anterior Plating

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the differences in spinal stability and stabilizing potential of instrumentation after cervical corpectomy and spondylectomy. Methods: Seven human cadaveric specimens were tested: 1) intact; 2) after grafted C5 corpectomy and anterior C4–C6 plate; 3) after adding posterior C4–C6 screws/rods; 4) after extending posteriorly to C3–C7; 5) after grafted C5 spondylectomy, anterior C4–C6 plate, and posterior C4–C6 screws/rods; and 6) after extending posteriorly to C3–C7. Pure moments induced flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation; angular motion was recorded optically. Results: After corpectomy, anterior plating alone reduced the angular range of motion to a mean of 30% of normal, whereas added posterior short- or long-segment hardware reduced range of motion significantly more (P < 0.003), to less than 5% of normal. Constructs with posterior rods spanning C3–C7 were stiffer than constructs with posterior rods spanning C4–C6 during flexion, extension, and lateral bending (P < 0.05), but not during axial rotation (P > 0.07). Combined anterior and C4–C6 posterior fixation exhibited greater stiffness after corpectomy than after spondylectomy during lateral bending (P = 0.019) and axial rotation (P = 0.001). Combined anterior and C3–C7 posterior fixation exhibited greater stiffness after corpectomy than after spondylectomy during extension (P = 0.030) and axial rotation (P = 0.0001). Conclusion: Circumferential fixation provides more stability than anterior instrumentation alone after cervical corpectomy. After corpectomy or spondylectomy, long circumferential instrumentation provides better stability than short circumferential fixation except during axial rotation. Circumferential fixation more effectively prevents axial rotation after corpectomy than after spondylectomy.

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.

Stability of the craniovertebral junction after unilateral occipital condyle resection: a biomechanical study

1999 ◽  
Vol 90 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Giancarlo Vishteh ◽  
Neil R. Crawford ◽  
M. Stephen Melton ◽  
Robert F. Spetzler ◽  
Volker K. H. Sonntag ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Craniovertebral Junction ◽  
Biomechanical Study ◽  
Occipital Condyle ◽  
Upper Cervical Spine ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Axial Translation ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The authors sought to determine the biomechanics of the occipitoatlantal (occiput [Oc]—C1) and atlantoaxial (C1–2) motion segments after unilateral gradient condylectomy. Methods. Six human cadaveric specimens (skull with attached upper cervical spine) underwent nondestructive biomechanical testing (physiological loads) during flexion—extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Axial translation from tension to compression was also studied across Oc—C2. Each specimen served as its own control and underwent baseline testing in the intact state. The specimens were then tested after progressive unilateral condylectomy (25% resection until completion), which was performed using frameless stereotactic guidance. At Oc—C1 for all motions that were tested, mobility increased significantly compared to baseline after a 50% condylectomy. Flexion—extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation increased 15.3%, 40.8%, and 28.1%, respectively. At C1–2, hypermobility during flexion—extension occurred after a 25% condylectomy, during axial rotation after 75% condylectomy, and during lateral bending after a 100% condylectomy. Conclusions. Resection of 50% or more of the occipital condyle produces statistically significant hypermobility at Oc—C1. After a 75% resection, the biomechanics of the Oc—C1 and C1–2 motion segments change considerably. Performing fusion of the craniovertebral junction should therefore be considered if half or more of one occipital condyle is resected.

Biomechanical analysis of stand-alone lumbar interbody cages versus 360° constructs: an in vitro and finite element investigation

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Instrumentation ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Interbody Cage ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Lateral Interbody ◽  
Flexion And Extension

OBJECTIVE Low fusion rates and cage subsidence are limitations of lumbar fixation with stand-alone interbody cages. Various approaches to interbody cage placement exist, yet the need for supplemental posterior fixation is not clear from clinical studies. Therefore, as prospective clinical studies are lacking, a comparison of segmental kinematics, cage properties, and load sharing on vertebral endplates is needed. This laboratory investigation evaluates the mechanical stability and biomechanical properties of various interbody fixation techniques by performing cadaveric and finite element (FE) modeling studies. METHODS An in vitro experiment using 7 fresh-frozen human cadavers was designed to test intact spines with 1) stand-alone lateral interbody cage constructs (lateral interbody fusion, LIF) and 2) LIF supplemented with posterior pedicle screw-rod fixation (360° constructs). FE and kinematic data were used to validate a ligamentous FE model of the lumbopelvic spine. The validated model was then used to evaluate the stability of stand-alone LIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) cages with and without supplemental posterior fixation at the L4–5 level. The FE models of intact and instrumented cases were subjected to a 400-N compressive preload followed by an 8-Nm bending moment to simulate physiological flexion, extension, bending, and axial rotation. Segmental kinematics and load sharing at the inferior endplate were compared. RESULTS The FE kinematic predictions were consistent with cadaveric data. The range of motion (ROM) in LIF was significantly lower than intact spines for both stand-alone and 360° constructs. The calculated reduction in motion with respect to intact spines for stand-alone constructs ranged from 43% to 66% for TLIF, 67%–82% for LIF, and 69%–86% for ALIF in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. In flexion and extension, the maximum reduction in motion was 70% for ALIF versus 81% in LIF for stand-alone cases. When supplemented with posterior fixation, the corresponding reduction in ROM was 76%–87% for TLIF, 86%–91% for LIF, and 90%–92% for ALIF. The addition of posterior instrumentation resulted in a significant reduction in peak stress at the superior endplate of the inferior segment in all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS Stand-alone ALIF and LIF cages are most effective in providing stability in lateral bending and axial rotation and less so in flexion and extension. Supplemental posterior instrumentation improves stability for all interbody techniques. Comparative clinical data are needed to further define the indications for stand-alone cages in lumbar fusion surgery.

Biomechanical studies of an artificial disc implant in the human cadaveric spine

2005 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 339-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick W. Hitchon ◽  
Kurt Eichholz ◽  
Christopher Barry ◽  
Paige Rubenbauer ◽  
Aditya Ingalhalikar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biomechanical Testing ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Load Testing ◽  
Artificial Disc ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Intact State ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The authors compared the biomechanical performance of the human cadaveric spine implanted with a metallic ball-and-cup artificial disc at L4–5 with the spine's intact state and after anterior discectomy. Methods. Seven human L2—S1 cadaveric spines were mounted on a biomechanical testing frame. Pure moments of 0, 1.5, 3.0, 4.5, and 6.0 Nm were applied to the spine at L-2 in six degrees of motion (flexion, extension, right and left lateral bending, and right and left axial rotation). The spines were tested in the intact state as well as after anterior L4–5 discectomy. The Maverick disc was implanted in the discectomy defect, and load testing was repeated. The artificial disc created greater rigidity for the spine than was present after discectomy, and the spine performed biomechanically in a manner comparable with the intact state. Conclusions. The results indicate that in an in vitro setting, this model of artificial disc stabilizes the spine after discectomy, restoring motion comparable with that of the intact state.

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

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 314-322 ◽  
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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document