Search

Object: The stability provided by 3 occipitoatlantal fixation techniques (occiput [Oc]-C1 transarticular screws, occipital keel screws rigidly interconnected with C-1 lateral mass screws, and suboccipital/sublaminar wired contoured rod) were compared., Methods: Seven human cadaveric specimens received transarticular screws and 7 received occipital keel-C1 lateral mass screws. All specimens later underwent contoured rod fixation. All conditions were studied with and without placement of a structural graft wired between the skull base and C-1 lamina. Specimens were loaded quasistatically using pure moments to induce flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation while recording segmental motion optoelectronically. Flexibility was measured immediately postoperatively and after 10,000 cycles of fatigue., Results: Application of Oc-C1 transarticular screws, with a wired graft, reduced the mean range of motion (ROM) to 3% of normal. Occipital keel-C1 lateral mass screws (also with graft) offered less stability than transarticular screws during extension and lateral bending (p < 0.02), reducing ROM to 17% of normal. The wired contoured rod reduced motion to 31% of normal, providing significantly less stability than either screw fixation technique. Fatigue increased motion in constructs fitted with transarticular screws, keel screws/lateral mass screw constructs, and contoured wired rods, by means of 19, 5, and 26%, respectively. In all constructs, adding a structural graft significantly improved stability, but the extent depended on the loading direction., Conclusions: Assuming the presence of mild C1-2 instability, Oc-C1 transarticular screws and occipital keel-C1 lateral mass screws are approximately equivalent in performance for occipitoatlantal stabilization in promoting fusion. A posteriorly wired contoured rod is less likely to provide a good fusion environment because of less stabilizing potential and a greater likelihood of loosening with fatigue.

Object: An in vitro flexibility experiment was performed to compare the biomechanical stability of asymmetrical lumbar pedicle screw fixation (longer hardware attached ipsilaterally to a 1-sided lesion), short and long fixation, and fixation with and without interconnection to the involved vertebra., Methods: Seven human cadaveric specimens (T12-S1) were studied intact; after simulated unilateral lesions were created at L2-3 and L3-4, the segments were stabilized by 1) L2-4 unilateral fixation (L-3 excluded), 2) L2-4 bilateral fixation (L-3 included contralaterally), 3) L2-5 unilateral fixation (L-3 excluded), 4) L2-5 fixation ipsilateral (L-3 excluded) and L2-4 fixation contralateral (L-3 included), 5) L2-5 bilateral fixation (L-3 included contralaterally), and 6) L2-5 bilateral fixation (L-3 excluded). The testing order varied among specimens. Angular range of motion (ROM) and lax zone were recorded optically while loading to 6.0 Nm was created with nonconstraining pure moments., Results: Unilateral short fixation provided significantly worse stabilization than any other construct tested in all loading modes (p < 0.05, repeated-measures analysis of variance). There was a mean 56% reduction in ROM across the lesion after adding 1 additional level rostrally and caudally. Asymmetrical long/short stabilization provided similar stability to symmetrical long stabilization. Minimal additional stability was gained by including L-3 in the long bilateral fixation construct., Conclusions: Unilateral fixation is inadequate for stabilizing a 2-level unilateral lesion. Bilateral fixation, whether symmetrical or asymmetrical, provides good stabilization for this injury. It is not important for stability to include the level of the lesion within the long construct contralaterally.

Background Context: Extrapedicular screws are placed more laterally than intrapedicular screws and pass through the transverse process or rib head before entering the vertebral body. These screws are sometimes placed to salvage failed pedicle screws, but the change in pullout resistance of extrapedicular screws after salvage has not been quantified., Purpose: To quantify the pullout resistance of thoracic extrapedicular screws compared with intrapedicular screws and the pullout resistance of newly inserted screws compared with extrapedicular screws used as salvage for failed intrapedicular screws., Study Design: In vitro paired comparison of screw pullout resistance in isolated thoracic vertebrae., Methods: Tapered monoaxial pedicle screws were inserted in the left or right pedicle of 11 human cadaveric thoracic vertebrae. An extrapedicular screw was inserted on the contralateral side. Both screws were pulled out axially at 0.5 mm/s using a servohydraulic test frame while applied load was recorded. Then a fresh extrapedicular screw was inserted as a salvage screw on the intrapedicular screw side and pulled out., Results: In uncompromised vertebrae, the pullout strength of extrapedicular screws was 80+/-32% of that of intrapedicular screws (p=.073, repeated-measures one-way analysis of variance/Tukey). Salvage screws restored pullout strength to 65+/-30% of that of intrapedicular screws (p=.003)., Conclusions: Extrapedicular screws provided comparable but slightly lower pullout resistance to intrapedicular screws in uncompromised vertebrae. They are therefore a feasible salvage technique when a compromised pedicle precludes reinsertion of an intrapedicular screw, but the salvage screw is significantly weaker than the original screw.

Background Context: The technique of occipitocervical fusion using a threaded contoured rod attached with sublaminar wires to the occiput and upper cervical vertebrae is widely used throughout the world and has been clinically proven to provide effective fixation of the destabilized spine. However, this system has some disadvantages in maintaining stability, especially at C1-C2 because of the large amount of axial rotation at this level. In some clinical situations such as fracture of the C1 lamina, C1 laminectomy, and excessively lordotic curvature, it is not always possible to wire C1 directly into the construct. In such cases, combination of other stabilization methods that include C1 indirectly can be used to achieve a reliable posterior internal fixation., Purpose: Primarily, to evaluate whether a contoured rod construct in which C1 is indirectly included using C1-C2 transarticular screws is biomechanically equivalent to a standard, fully wired contoured rod construct. Secondarily, to evaluate the biomechanical benefit of adding C1-C2 transarticular screws to a fully wired contoured rod construct., Study Design: Repeated-measures nondestructive in vitro biomechanical testing of destabilized cadaveric human occipitocervical spine specimens., Methods: Six human cadaveric specimens from the occiput to C3 were studied. Angular and linear displacement data were recorded while nonconstraining nondestructive loads were applied. Three methods of fixation were tested: contoured rod incorporating C1 with and without transarticular screws and contoured rod with transarticular screws without incorporating C1., Results: All three constructs reduced motion to well within normal range. In contoured rod constructs with C1 wired, addition of transarticular screws slightly but significantly improved stability. In constructs with transarticular screws, incorporation of C1 into the contoured rod wiring did not improve stability significantly., Conclusions: Adding C1-C2 transarticular screws to a wired contoured rod construct where C1 is included only slightly improves stability. As the absolute reduction in motion from adding transarticular screws is small (<1 degree), it is doubtful whether any enhanced fusion from this additional procedure outweighs the surgical risks. However, transarticular screws provide an effective alternate method to fixate C1 when the posterior arch of C1 is absent or has been fractured.