[Biomechanical study of the stability of subaxial cervical anterior transpedicular screw fixation for three-column injury].

Objective: To compare the stability of subaxial cervical anterior transpedicular screw(ATPS) fixation and three traditional fixations for three-column injury.
Methods: Six specimens of cervical spine were prepared. After measurememt of the range of motion(ROM) in intact state, the specimens were made into three-column injury models. The models were reconstructed with an anterior cervical cage, and stabilized by ATPS, anterior plate(AP), anterior plate + lateral mass screw(AP+LMS) and posterior transpedicular screw(PTPS). The ROM of the models in the four states were measured, and the results of data were compared after standardization.
Results: The normalized ROM of ATPS state in flexion-extension, lateral bending, axial rotation were(77.17±4.75)%, (82.00±2.61)%, (83.17±2.23)%, which were significant small than those in intact state( P <0.05). The normalized ROM of AP state in flexion-extension, lateral bending, axial rotation were(119.67±7.42)%, (116.33±7.53)%, (112.67±5.99)% , which were significant larger than those in intact state( P <0.05). The normalized ROM of AP in all directions were significant larger than those of ATPS( P <0.05). There was no significant difference between normalized ROM of PTPS state and those of ATPS state in flexion-extension and lateral bending( P >0.05). The normalized ROM of PTPS state in axial rotation was(6.83±2.48)% and was significant larger than that of ATPS state( P =0.009). The normalized ROM of AP+LMS state in flexion-extension was(68.50±2.43)%, which was significant smaller than that of ATPS state( P =0.003). There was no significant difference between the normalized ROM of AP+LMS state and those of ATPS state in lateral bending and axial rotation( P >0.05).
Conclusions: Subaxial cervical three-column injury model reconstruction by ATPS can provide the adequate primary stability, of which biomechanics property is superior compared to AP and PTPS, and is similar to that of AP+LMS. It can be applied to the patients with no need to decompression and reduction through posterior approach.
Competing Interests: The authors of this article and the planning committee members and staff have no relevant financial relationships with commercial interests to disclose.
(Copyright© 2018 by the China Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology Press.)