A Biomechanical Comparison of Alternatives to C2 Pedicle Screws.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Spine Pub Date : 2025-05-05 DOI:10.1097/BRS.0000000000005383
Qiang Jian, Weiwei Da, Jason DePhillips, Joshua P McGuckin, Izabella T Lachcik, Nathanial A Myers, Jonathan M Mahoney, Dean Chou, Brandon S Bucklen
{"title":"A Biomechanical Comparison of Alternatives to C2 Pedicle Screws.","authors":"Qiang Jian, Weiwei Da, Jason DePhillips, Joshua P McGuckin, Izabella T Lachcik, Nathanial A Myers, Jonathan M Mahoney, Dean Chou, Brandon S Bucklen","doi":"10.1097/BRS.0000000000005383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Cadaveric biomechanics study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study compares five C2 fixation methods: pedicle, pars, translaminar, medial in-out-in, and subfacetal screws.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>Variations in vascular and pedicle anatomy of the C2 vertebra can make C2 fixation difficult. Two novel trajectories--the medial in-out-in and subfacetal trajectory--may be alternatives. The medial in-out-in trajectory enables three-point cortical fixation while the subfacetal trajectory avoids the VA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Polyaxial screws were inserted into C1 lateral masses and C2 vertebrae in 12 cadaveric specimens. Specimens were assigned to one of four test groups based on C2 screw trajectory: pedicle, pars, medial in-out-in, subfacetal, and translaminar. Range of motion (ROM) in flexion/extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) were measured at C1-2 using a custom-built six-degree-of-freedom motion simulator and motion analysis software. Two ROM tests were performed on each specimen: 1) intact construct and 2) screw-rod construct. C2 screws were then subjected to pullout testing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Average ROM for intact constructs was 11.04° in FE, 3.21° in LB, and 59.43° in AR. There was a significant difference of ROM in all three directions (P<.01) among constructs. For the screw-rod construct, average ROM decreased 87% in FE, 86% in LB, and 97% in AR compared to intact. A two-way mixed ANOVA showed there was no significant difference in ROM between test groups for FE (P=0.738), LB (P=0.714), or AR (P=0.996) independent of construct. Medial in-out-in showed 10% higher pullout strength compared to the pedicle screw and subfacetal showed an 83% increase in pullout strength compared to the pars screw.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The medial in-out-in and subfacetal trajectories represent viable alternatives for C1-2 stabilization in anatomically constrained cases, such as a high-riding vertebral artery or a narrow C2 pedicle. These novel techniques may expand surgical options for achieving robust C2 fixation.</p>","PeriodicalId":22193,"journal":{"name":"Spine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000005383","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Cadaveric biomechanics study.

Objective: This study compares five C2 fixation methods: pedicle, pars, translaminar, medial in-out-in, and subfacetal screws.

Summary of background data: Variations in vascular and pedicle anatomy of the C2 vertebra can make C2 fixation difficult. Two novel trajectories--the medial in-out-in and subfacetal trajectory--may be alternatives. The medial in-out-in trajectory enables three-point cortical fixation while the subfacetal trajectory avoids the VA.

Methods: Polyaxial screws were inserted into C1 lateral masses and C2 vertebrae in 12 cadaveric specimens. Specimens were assigned to one of four test groups based on C2 screw trajectory: pedicle, pars, medial in-out-in, subfacetal, and translaminar. Range of motion (ROM) in flexion/extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) were measured at C1-2 using a custom-built six-degree-of-freedom motion simulator and motion analysis software. Two ROM tests were performed on each specimen: 1) intact construct and 2) screw-rod construct. C2 screws were then subjected to pullout testing.

Results: Average ROM for intact constructs was 11.04° in FE, 3.21° in LB, and 59.43° in AR. There was a significant difference of ROM in all three directions (P<.01) among constructs. For the screw-rod construct, average ROM decreased 87% in FE, 86% in LB, and 97% in AR compared to intact. A two-way mixed ANOVA showed there was no significant difference in ROM between test groups for FE (P=0.738), LB (P=0.714), or AR (P=0.996) independent of construct. Medial in-out-in showed 10% higher pullout strength compared to the pedicle screw and subfacetal showed an 83% increase in pullout strength compared to the pars screw.

Conclusions: The medial in-out-in and subfacetal trajectories represent viable alternatives for C1-2 stabilization in anatomically constrained cases, such as a high-riding vertebral artery or a narrow C2 pedicle. These novel techniques may expand surgical options for achieving robust C2 fixation.

C2椎弓根螺钉替代方案的生物力学比较
研究设计:尸体生物力学研究。目的:比较5种C2固定方法:椎弓根螺钉、椎弓根螺钉、椎板间螺钉、内侧内-外-内螺钉和面下螺钉。背景资料总结:C2椎体血管和椎弓根解剖结构的变化会使C2固定困难。两种新的轨迹——内侧内-外-内和面下轨迹——可能是替代方案。内侧内-外-内轨迹可实现三点皮质固定,而面下轨迹可避免va。方法:对12例尸体标本的C1侧块和C2椎体置入多轴螺钉。标本根据C2螺钉轨迹分为四组:椎弓根、部、内侧内-外-内、面下和椎板间。使用定制的六自由度运动模拟器和运动分析软件测量C1-2的屈伸(FE)、侧向弯曲(LB)和轴向旋转(AR)的运动范围(ROM)。对每个标本进行两次ROM试验:1)完整构造和2)螺杆构造。然后对C2螺钉进行拉出试验。结果:完整构造体的平均ROM为FE 11.04°,LB 3.21°,AR 59.43°。三个方向的ROM均有显著差异(pp结论:内侧内-外-内和面下轨迹是解剖学受限病例(如高位椎动脉或狭窄的C2椎弓根)C1-2稳定的可行选择。这些新技术可能扩大手术选择以实现强健的C2固定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Spine
Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
361
审稿时长
6.0 months
期刊介绍: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store. Recognized internationally as the leading journal in its field, Spine is an international, peer-reviewed, bi-weekly periodical that considers for publication original articles in the field of Spine. It is the leading subspecialty journal for the treatment of spinal disorders. Only original papers are considered for publication with the understanding that they are contributed solely to Spine. The Journal does not publish articles reporting material that has been reported at length elsewhere.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信