Biomechanical comparison between C-7 lateral mass and pedicle screws in subaxial cervical constructs. Presented at the 2009 Joint Spine Meeting. Laboratory investigation
- PMID: 21121745
- DOI: 10.3171/2010.5.SPINE09712
Biomechanical comparison between C-7 lateral mass and pedicle screws in subaxial cervical constructs. Presented at the 2009 Joint Spine Meeting. Laboratory investigation
Abstract
Object: The aim of this study was to conduct the first in vitro biomechanical comparison of immediate and postcyclical rigidities of C-7 lateral mass versus C-7 pedicle screws in posterior C4-7 constructs.
Methods: Ten human cadaveric spines were treated with C4-6 lateral mass screw and C-7 lateral mass (5 specimens) versus pedicle (5 specimens) screw fixation. Spines were potted in polymethylmethacrylate bone cement and placed on a materials testing machine. Rotation about the axis of bending was measured using passive retroreflective markers and infrared motion capture cameras. The motion of C-4 relative to C-7 in flexion-extension and lateral bending was assessed uninstrumented, immediately after instrumentation, and following 40,000 cycles of 4 Nm of flexion-extension and lateral bending moments at 1 Hz. The effect of instrumentation and cyclical loading on rotational motion across C4-7 was analyzed for significance.
Results: Preinstrumented spines for the 2 cohorts were comparable in bone mineral density and range of motion in both flexion-extension (p = 0.33) and lateral bending (p = 0.16). Lateral mass and pedicle screw constructs significantly reduced motion during flexion-extension (11.3°-0.26° for lateral mass screws, p = 0.002; 10.51°-0.30° for pedicle screws, p = 0.008) and lateral bending (7.38°-0.27° for lateral mass screws, p = 0.003; 11.65°-0.49° for pedicle screws, p = 0.03). After cyclical loading in both cohorts, rotational motion over C4-7 was increased during flexion-extension (0.26°-0.68° for lateral mass screws; 0.30°-1.31° for pedicle screws) and lateral bending (0.27°-0.39° and 0.49°-0.80°, respectively), although the increase was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). There was no statistical difference in postcyclical flexion-extension (p = 0.20) and lateral bending (0.10) between lateral mass and pedicle screws.
Conclusions: Both C-7 lateral mass and C-7 pedicle screws allow equally rigid fixation of subaxial lateral mass constructs ending at C-7. Immediately and within a simulated 6-week postfixation period, C-7 lateral mass screws may be as effective as C-7 pedicle screws in biomechanically stabilizing long subaxial lateral mass constructs.
Comment in
-
Pedicle versus lateral mass screws.J Neurosurg Spine. 2010 Dec;13(6):686; discussion 686-7. doi: 10.3171/2010.4.SPINE10253. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010. PMID: 21121744 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Biomechanical comparison of translaminar versus pedicle screws at T1 and T2 in long subaxial cervical constructs.Neurosurgery. 2009 Dec;65(6 Suppl):167-72; discussion 172. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000345642.50726.A3. Neurosurgery. 2009. PMID: 19934991
-
Biomechanical evaluation of occipitocervicothoracic fusion: impact of partial or sequential fixation.Spine J. 2008 Sep-Oct;8(5):821-6. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.05.008. Epub 2007 Jul 19. Spine J. 2008. PMID: 17981098
-
Biomechanical analysis of transpedicular screw fixation in the subaxial cervical spine.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Sep 1;29(17):1869-75. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000137287.67388.0b. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004. PMID: 15534407
-
Biomechanical analysis of screw constructs for atlantoaxial fixation in cadavers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Neurosurg Spine. 2015 Feb;22(2):151-61. doi: 10.3171/2014.10.SPINE13805. Epub 2014 Dec 5. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015. PMID: 25478824 Review.
-
Screw-related complications in the subaxial cervical spine with the use of lateral mass versus cervical pedicle screws: a systematic review.J Neurosurg Spine. 2013 Nov;19(5):614-23. doi: 10.3171/2013.8.SPINE13136. Epub 2013 Sep 13. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013. PMID: 24033303 Review.
Cited by
-
Finite Element Analysis Comparing the Biomechanical Parameters in Multilevel Posterior Cervical Instrumentation Model Involving Lateral Mass Screw versus Transpedicular Screw Fixation at the C7 Vertebra.Asian Spine J. 2024 Apr;18(2):163-173. doi: 10.31616/asj.2023.0231. Epub 2024 Apr 23. Asian Spine J. 2024. PMID: 38650095 Free PMC article.
-
C7 distal fixation anchor and its influence on sagittal profile in posterior cervical fusion; a retrospective analysis of 44 cases.J Orthop. 2022 Nov 5;35:54-57. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2022.11.001. eCollection 2023 Jan. J Orthop. 2022. PMID: 36387765 Free PMC article.
-
Risk Factor Analysis of Facet Fusion Following Cervical Lateral Mass Screw Fixation with a Minimum 1-Year Follow-up: Assessment of Maximal Insertional Screw Torque and Incidence of Loosening.Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2021 Jan 15;61(1):40-46. doi: 10.2176/nmc.oa.2020-0206. Epub 2020 Nov 18. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2021. PMID: 33208584 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of Three Different Options for C7 Posterior Vertebral Anchor in the Indian Population-Lateral Mass, Pedicle, and Lamina: A Computed Tomography-Based Morphometric Analysis.Asian Spine J. 2018 Aug;12(4):726-733. doi: 10.31616/asj.2018.12.4.726. Epub 2018 Jul 27. Asian Spine J. 2018. PMID: 30060383 Free PMC article.
-
Safety and efficacy of lateral mass screws at C7 in the treatment of cervical degenerative disease.Surg Neurol Int. 2017 Sep 7;8:218. doi: 10.4103/sni.sni_6_17. eCollection 2017. Surg Neurol Int. 2017. PMID: 28966824 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous