In vitro biomechanical comparison of transpedicular versus translaminar C-2 screw fixation in C2-3 instrumentation.
biomechanical · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 17933316.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
In instrumentation of the upper cervical spine, placement of pedicle screws into C-2 is generally safe, although there is the potential for injury to the vertebral arteries. Owing to this risk, translaminar screws into C-2 have been used. The aim of this study was to compare the stability of the in vitro cadaveric spine using C-2 laminar compared with C-2 pedicle screws in C2-3 instrumentation. Eight fresh frozen human cadaveric cervical spines (C1-6) were potted at C1-2 and C5-6. Pure moments in increments of 0.3 Nm to a maximum of 1.5 Nm were applied in flexion, extension, right and left lateral bending, and right and left axial rotation. Each specimen was tested sequentially in three modes: 1) intact; 2) C2 pedicle screw-C3 lateral mass fixation; and 3) C2 laminar screw-C3 lateral mass fixation. The sequence of fixation testing was randomized. Motion was tracked with reflective markers attached to C-2 and C-3. Spinal levels with instrumentation showed significantly less motion than the intact spine in all directions and with all loads greater than 0.3 Nm (p < 0.05). Although there was no significant difference between C2 pedicle screw-C3 lateral mass fixation and C2 laminar screw-C3 lateral mass fixation, generally the former type of fixation was associated with less motion than the latter. When pedicle screws in C-2 are contraindicated or inappropriate, laminar screws in C-2 offer a safe and acceptable option for posterior instrumentation.
Medical subject headings
- Atlanto-Axial Joint
- Bone Screws
- Cervical Vertebrae
- Range of Motion, Articular
- Spinal Fusion
Anatomy
- cervical spine