Operative techniques for the management of traumatic instability in the cervical spine

Operative techniques to treat traumatic cervical instability have evolved with the development of techniques, such as occipital segmental plating, C1 lateral mass screws, a variety of C2 fixation techniques, C1/C2 transarticular screw fixation, in addition to lateral mass and pedicle screws in the subaxial cervical spine. These advances have led to benefits, such as improved construct strength and enhanced biomechanical stability. In the current era, it is essential to have a good familiarity with the types of instrumentation available and a comprehensive understanding of the regional anatomy to avoid complications and optimize clinical outcomes.     

Posterior fixation of the upper cervical spine: contemporary techniques

Instrumentation in the upper cervical spine has changed considerably in the past two decades. Previous stand-alone wiring techniques have been made largely obsolete with the development of occipital segmental plating, transarticular screws, and C1 lateral mass screws, as well as a myriad of C2 fixation options, including pedicle, pars, and translaminar screws. Polyaxial screws and segmental fixation are more user-friendly than stand-alone wiring and provide a stronger construct. Awareness of the risks and benefits associated with the use of modern instrumentation and thorough familiarity with the anatomy of the upper cervical spine are essential to avoid complications and optimize outcomes.     

经寰枢关节间隙螺钉和寰椎椎板钩内固定的力学稳定性

目的评价双侧经寰枢关节间隙螺钉和寰椎椎板钩内固定的力学稳定性。方法将6具新鲜尸体颈椎标本（包括枕骨基底部和C1-C4颈椎节段）置于1．5Nm载荷下，测量C1，2节段的三维运动范围（range of motion，ROM）。标本依Gallie内固定、双侧经寰枢关节间隙螺钉和Gallie内固定、双侧经寰枢关节间隙螺钉内固定、双侧经寰枢关节间隙螺钉和寰椎椎板钩内固定、双侧寰椎侧块螺钉和枢椎椎弓根螺钉内固定的顺序实施固定，每次固定后测量三维运动范围。结果包含经寰枢关节间隙螺钉的内固定组在旋转和侧屈方向上具有最小的ROM，其中双侧经寰枢关节间隙螺钉和寰椎椎板钩内固定组在屈伸运动方向上也具有最小的ROM。寰椎侧块螺钉和枢椎椎弓根螺钉内固定组在旋转方向上ROM大于单纯经寰枢关节间隙螺钉内固定组，但在侧屈和屈伸方向上接近经寰枢关节间隙螺钉，差异无统计学意义；其在侧屈和旋转方向上ROM均小于Gallie内固定组，差异有统计学意义。结论双侧经寰枢关节间隙螺钉和寰椎椎板钩“三点”内固定具有最强的生物力学稳定性。虽然双侧寰椎侧块螺钉和枢椎椎弓根螺钉内固定在生物力学稳定性上不及“三点”内固定，但明显优于Gallie内固定。     

In vitro biomechanical comparison of transpedicular versus translaminar C-2 screw fixation in C2-3 instrumentation

OBJECT: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: When pedicle screws in C-2 are contraindicated or inappropriate, laminar screws in C-2 offer a safe and acceptable option for posterior instrumentation.     

下颈椎经关节螺钉联合侧块或椎弓根螺钉固定的效果

目的 探讨在下颈椎经颈后正中入路应用经关节螺钉联合侧块螺钉或椎弓根螺钉行内固定治疗的固定效果.方法 2003年2月至2007年10月,对22例患者通过后路应用经关节螺钉联合侧块螺钉或椎弓根螺钉行内固定治疗,男14例,女8例;年龄24～73岁,平均43岁.其中下颈椎创伤性骨折脱位13例,颈椎后纵韧带骨化症4例,颈椎管狭窄伴Ⅱ型齿突骨折1例,颈椎间盘突出伴椎管狭窄4例.结果 共置入经关节螺钉45枚,其中C4,5 2枚,C5,639枚,C6,74枚;共置入侧块螺钉12枚,C3、C4各6枚;共置入椎弓根螺钉41枚,其中C24枚,C32枚,C46枚,C721枚,T18枚.术中所有螺钉均成功置入,未出现椎动脉、神经根和脊髓损伤等置钉相关并发症.22例患者均获随访,随访时间10个月～3年8个月,平均17个月.植骨融合时间3～5个月,平均3.5个月.术后发现1例患者的2枚经关节螺钉松动,部分脱出.经加强颈托制动,术后4个月获得融合.结论 通过后路固定下颈椎时,采用经关节螺钉联合侧块螺钉或椎弓根螺钉固定,均可取得较好的固定效果.     

Pedicle screw fixation in the cervical spine

Pedicle screw fixation of the lower cervical spine is a new technique that provides an alternative to posterior lateral mass plating. Although biomechanical studies support the use of pedicle screws to reconstruct the cervical spine, placing screws into the small cervical pedicle poses a technical challenge. Penetration of the pedicle is the primary complication associated with screw insertion in the lower cervical spine. Pedicle screw fixation at the C2 and C7 pedicles in conjunction with use of plates for occipitocervical or cervicothoracic plating is becoming an accepted technique; however, pedicle screw fixation should not be routinely used at the C3-C6 levels. It may be indicated in patients who have osteoporotic bone or when rigid internal fixation cannot be achieved by conventional techniques.     

枢椎棘突螺钉单侧应用联合对侧椎弓根螺钉固定的有限元分析

目的分析枢椎棘突螺钉单侧应用联合对侧椎弓根螺钉固定在寰枢和枕颈固定中的生物力学稳定性。方法构建正常枢椎解剖、椎板薄和椎动脉变异椎弓根细小3种不同解剖状态下的完整上部颈椎有限元模型作为完整模型组,然后分别模拟齿状突骨折进行寰枢固定和寰椎骨折进行枕颈固定。在寰枢固定中,比较单侧枢椎棘突螺钉+对侧椎弓根螺钉+双侧寰椎侧块螺钉固定组(棘突螺钉组)和枢椎双侧椎弓根螺钉+双侧寰椎侧块螺钉固定组(椎弓根螺钉组);在枕颈固定中,比较单侧枢椎棘突螺钉+对侧椎弓根螺钉+枕骨螺钉固定组(棘突螺钉组)和枢椎双侧椎弓根螺钉+枕骨螺钉固定组(椎弓根螺钉组)。枢椎棘突螺钉分别测试水平、斜向、垂直置钉3种不同的固定技术。模拟颈椎运动,测量枕颈的屈伸、侧屈、旋转的关节活动范围(ROM)。结果在寰枢和枕颈固定中,棘突螺钉组和椎弓根螺钉组的C1~C2屈伸、侧屈、旋转ROM均较完整模型组均明显下降。在寰枢固定中棘突螺钉组C0~C2屈伸、侧屈、旋转的ROM大于椎弓根螺钉组;在枕颈固定中,棘突螺钉组C1~C2侧屈的ROM大于椎弓根螺钉组,棘突螺钉组的C0~C2旋转的ROM大于椎弓根螺钉组。枢椎棘突螺钉分别测试水平、斜向、垂直固定间有差异,但不明显。结论在寰枢和枕颈固定中,枢椎双侧椎弓根螺钉固定和枢椎单侧棘突螺钉联合对侧椎弓根螺钉组合式固定方法均具有良好的稳定性。在寰枢固定中,相对于枢椎棘突螺钉组合式固定,枢椎双侧椎弓根螺钉固定具有更好的寰枢稳定性。在枕颈固定中,枢椎双侧椎弓根螺钉固定在侧屈和旋转活动上较枢椎棘突螺钉组合式固定稳定性更好。枢椎三种棘突螺钉置钉技术间的稳定性差异并不明显。     

C1侧块骨折Magerl技术内固定的数字化模拟及应用

目的 探讨计算机软件应用于C1侧块骨折三维重建、复位以及数字化模拟Magerl技术内固定的方法及临床意义,以指导临床应用.方法 将1具颈椎标本制作成C1侧块骨折类型,进行高速CT薄层扫描,在Mimics中对C1侧块骨折模型进行重建、复位,以Solidworks进行螺钉的设计,并在骨折复位三维模型上进行虚拟Magerl技术内固定.结果 对骨折进行了三维重建、复位,根据三维模型测量数据,完成虚拟螺钉内固定,并成功指导临床手术21例.结论 应用Mimics及Solidworks可在个人电脑上设计出C1侧块骨折数字化螺钉固定,对临床手术有很好的参考意义.     

Atlantoaxial fusion: a biomechanical analysis of two C1–C2 fusion techniques

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Different atlantoaxial fusion techniques are used for instability. Transarticular screws are biomechanically superior to wiring techniques and equivalent to C1 lateral mass to C2 pedicle (C1LM-C2P) fixation. Recently, C1 lateral mass to C2 laminar (C1LM-C2L) fixation has been shown to have flexibility similar to C1LM-C2P fixation in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. PURPOSE: Compare the stiffness of C1LM-C2P with C1LM-C2L screw rod fixation. STUDY DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Stiffness in flexion/extension, lateral bending, axial rotation, and anterior-posterior (AP) translation. METHODS: Eight fresh-frozen human cadaveric cervical spines (C1-C3) were tested intact and, after a type II odontoid fracture, were instrumented and tested with two fixation constructs: C1LM-C2P screws and C1LM-C2L screws. The testing involved flexion, extension, lateral bending, AP translation, and axial rotation. Stiffness was measured and compared with a repeated-measures analysis. RESULTS: C1LM-C2P was significantly stiffer than the intact in AP translation (p<.001), lateral bending (p=.001), and axial rotation (p=.002) and equivalent in flexion/extension (p=.09). C1LM-C2L was significantly stiffer than the intact in AP translation (p<.01) and axial rotation (p<.004) and equivalent in lateral bending (p<.71) and flexion/extension (p=.22). C1LM-C2P was stiffer than C1LM-C2L in right/left lateral bending (p<.001) and axial rotation (p=.009) and equivalent in AP translation (p=.06) and flexion/extension (p=.74). CONCLUSION: C1LM-C2P fixation is equivalent to C1LM-C2L fixation in flexion/extension and AP translation and superior in lateral bending and axial rotation.     

枢椎经椎板螺钉联合寰椎侧块螺钉内固定术的临床应用

目的 探讨后路经枢椎椎板螺钉联合寰椎侧块螺钉固定技术治疗上颈椎不稳的临床疗效和并发症.方法 2003年10月至2006年12月,采用此技术治疗寰枢椎不稳17例,男12例,女5例;年龄34～73岁,平均42.5岁.Anderson Ⅱ型和Ⅲ型齿突骨折14例,寰椎横韧带断裂1例,先天性游离齿突并寰枢椎不稳2例.均有寰枢椎半脱位或不稳,表现为不同程度的颈枕区疼痛,活动受限.枢椎经椎板螺钉固定技术以棘突和椎板的交界处椎板头尾方向的中点为进钉点,为避免钉道的相互干扰,第1枚螺钉的进钉点通常选择枢椎椎板的偏头侧,另1枚螺钉的进钉点偏尾侧,用高速磨钻在进钉点磨去少许皮质骨开窗后,用手钻向枢椎对侧椎板钻孔,螺钉方向在直视下与椎板平面并行,并稍向枢椎椎板背侧倾斜,以确保螺钉不穿破椎板腹侧皮质侵犯椎管,宁可穿破枢椎椎板背侧皮质骨.内固定系统均使用颈椎后路Vertex钉棒系统同定.结果 术中无一例发生脊髓和椎动脉损伤.有2例患者在剥离寰椎后弓下缘时,损伤静脉丛,用明胶海绵压迫止血成功.术后CT示枢椎椎板螺钉位置良好,未见侵犯枢椎椎管和脊髓.随访术后X线片未见明显颈椎不稳、内固定失败及螺钉松动退出.结论 枢椎后路经椎板螺钉技术固定牢固,操作简单,相对安全,值得进一步推广.     

后路寰椎螺钉固定的研究进展

后路寰椎螺钉固定包括寰椎侧块螺钉和寰椎后弓侧块螺钉固定。它们在解剖上是可行的,但需注意椎动脉沟底骨质最薄处的后弓厚度,避免损伤椎动脉及颈内动脉,术前必须常规行寰椎侧位X线及CT扫描帮助确定进钉点及进钉方向。螺钉有较好的拔出力(即使使用单皮质螺钉),并且寰椎侧块螺钉和枢椎关节突间螺钉以及棒连接的结构与经关节螺钉后路钢丝植骨块结构一样稳定。目前较为常用的进钉技术有3种:Harms、Xia、Gupta等的侧块螺钉技术,以及Tan和马向阳等的后弓侧块螺钉技术。临床结果显示:后路寰椎螺钉固定技术能即刻解除脊髓神经压迫、缓解症状,有较好的即刻稳定性,保留枕颈间的运动功能,并且有融合率极高,断钉率、疾病复发以及术后并发症极少等优越性。     

Cervical transfacet versus lateral mass screws: a biomechanical comparison

The authors directly the compared biomechanical pullout strength of screws placed in the cervical lateral masses to that of screws placed across the facet joints. Posterior cervical fixation with lateral mass plates is an accepted adjunctive technique for cervical spine fusions. Altered anatomy resulting from congenital malformation, tumor, trauma, infection, or failed lateral mass fixation may limit traditional screw placement options. Transfacet screw placement, which has been studied extensively in the lumbar spine, may offer an alternative when posterior cervical fusion is required. Ten fresh human cadaveric cervical spines (postmortem age range, 69 to 91 years) were harvested. On one side, transfacet screws were placed at the C3-4, C5-6, and C7-T1 levels. On the other side, lateral mass screws were placed at the C3, C5, and C7 levels. The screw insertion technique at each level was randomized for right or left. After screw placement, each set of vertebral bodies were dissected and mounted in a custom jig for axial pullout testing using a servohydraulic testing machine. The load-displacement curves were obtained for each screw pullout. The mean pullout strength for the screws placed across the facets was 467 N (range, 192 to 1,176 N). This compares with 360 N (range, 194 to 750 N) for the lateral mass screws (p = 0.008). At each level, transfacet screws exhibited greater pullout resistance compared with the lateral mass placement, but the difference was most pronounced at the C7-T1 level (lateral mass = 373 N, transfacet = 539 N, p = 0.042). Cervical transfacet screw placement provides pullout resistance that is comparable to, if not greater than, lateral mass placement. This type of placement, although technically difficult, may be an alternative to lateral mass screws in cases with unusual anatomy, stripped screws, or when additional intermediate points of fixation are desired.     

寰枢椎脱位后路螺钉固定方法的临床选择

目的 探讨寰枢椎脱位后路钉棒固定术中寰椎螺钉和枢椎螺钉固定方法 的临床选择.方法 对2002 年11 月至2011 年12 月广州军区广州总医院收治的228 例可复性和23 例难复性寰枢椎脱位患者,术前进行置钉可行性和复位可能性评估,针对性地选择寰椎和枢椎的后路螺钉固定方法,进行寰枢椎后路钉棒固定治疗.结果 251 例患者均行钉棒固定并获得满意复位.寰椎螺钉固定采用椎弓根螺钉403 枚、部分经椎弓根螺钉77 枚、侧块螺钉22 枚;枢椎螺钉固定采用椎弓根螺钉437 枚、椎板螺钉56 枚、侧块螺钉9 枚.术中未发生椎动脉、脊髓损伤.237 例患者获得随访,随访时间4～38 个月,平均随访时间13 个月.230 例患者获骨性融合;6例为纤维愈合,动力位片（均随访2 年以上）未见复发脱位;另1 例为假关节未融合并双侧枢椎椎弓根螺钉松动,行后路翻修手术治愈.结论 根据寰枢椎脱位的复位难易程度和个体解剖特点灵活选择寰椎和枢椎不同的后路螺钉固定方法,扩大了寰枢椎后路钉棒固定技术的适用范围,提高了手术安全性和成功率.     

Spine update: cervical spine internal fixation using screw and screw-plate constructs

Screw and screw-plate constructs have been used successfully in fixation of the cervical spine. This update focuses on the indications, complications, and nuances in the technique used for odontoid screws, transarticular C1-C2 screws, occipitocervical plating, posterior lateral mass screws, pedicle screws, and anterior plating.     

Biomechanical comparison of the pullout strengths of C1 lateral mass screws and C1 posterior arch screws

Background contextConditions of the atlantoaxial complex requiring internal stabilization can result from trauma, malignancy, inflammatory diseases, and congenital malformation. Several techniques have been used for stabilization and fusion. Posterior wiring is biomechanically inferior to screw fixation. C1 lateral mass screws and C1 posterior arch screws are used for instrumentation of the atlas. Previous studies have shown that unicortical C1 lateral mass screws are biomechanically stable for fixation. No study has evaluated the biomechanical stability of C1 posterior arch screws or compared the two techniques.PurposeThe purpose of the study was to assess the differences in the pullout strength between C1 lateral mass screws and C1 posterior arch screws.Study designBiomechanical testing of pullout strengths of the two atlantal screw fixation techniques.MethodsThirteen fresh human cadaveric C1 vertebrae were harvested, stripped of soft tissues, evaluated with computed tomography for anomalies, and instrumented with unicortical C1 lateral mass screws on one side and unicortical C1 posterior arch screws on the other. Screw placement was confirmed with postinstrumentation fluoroscopy. Specimens were divided in the sagittal plane and potted in polymethylmethacrylate. Axial load to failure was applied with a material testing device. Load displacement curves were obtained, and the results were compared with Student t test. DePuy Spine, Inc. (Raynham, MA, USA) provided the hardware used in this study.ResultsMean pullout strength of the C1 lateral mass screws was 821 N (range 387?1,645 N±standard deviation [SD] 364). Mean pullout strength of the posterior arch screws was 1,403 N (range 483?2,200 N±SD 609 N). The difference was significant (p=.009). Five samples (38%) in the posterior arch group experienced bone failure before screw pullout.ConclusionsBoth unicortical lateral mass screws and unicortical posterior arch screws are viable options for fixation in the atlas. Unicortical posterior arch screws have superior resistance to pullout via axial load compared with unicortical lateral mass screws in the atlas.     

多种寰枢椎后路钉棒固定技术的临床组合应用

目的评价3种寰椎后路螺钉固定方法和2种枢椎后路螺钉固定方法构成的钉棒组合治疗上颈椎不稳的可行性和临床效果。方法在气管插管全麻下对132例患者施行了寰枢椎后路钉棒固定技术,寰椎进行椎弓根螺钉、部分经椎弓根螺钉或侧块螺钉固定;枢椎进行椎弓根螺钉或交叉椎板螺钉固定。结果全组病例获钉棒固定,其中寰椎螺钉固定采用椎弓根螺钉224枚,部分经椎弓根螺钉36枚,侧块螺钉4枚;枢椎螺钉固定采用椎弓根螺钉240枚,椎板螺钉24枚。术中未发生椎动脉、脊髓损伤。120例患者术后获得随访3～22个月,平均8个月,临床症状得到不同程度的改善;X线片、CT复查螺钉位置良好,无松动、断钉,植骨3～6个月后均达到满意融合。结论寰椎和枢椎螺钉可进行多重组合,为上颈椎后路提供灵活多变的短节段固定,增加了钉棒固定技术的临床适用范围。     

Biomechanical evaluation of occipitocervicothoracic fusion: impact of partial or sequential fixation

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Surgical instrumentation used for posterior craniocervical instability has evolved from simple wiring techniques to sophisticated implant systems that incorporate multiple means of rigid fixation for the cervical spine. Polyaxial screws and lamina hooks in conjunction with occipital plating and transitional rods for caudal fixation theoretically allow for fixation points at each vertebra along the posterior aspect of the cervical spine. However, the potential for anatomical constraints to prevent intraoperative instrumentation at the desired vertebral level exists. The biomechanical implications of such "skipped segments" have not been well documented. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the biomechanical effects of partial three-point fixation versus sequential fixation at all levels of the cervical spine from the occiput to T1. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Fresh frozen human cadaveric cervical spines from the occiput (CO) to T1 were prepared and mounted on a spine simulator. Motion was assessed by a three-dimensional optoelectronic motion measurement system. Kinematic data were collected and range of motion (ROM) was analyzed and reported. METHODS: Eight human noninstrumented intact spines (Treatment 1) were tested for baseline ROM which was subclassified into axial (CO-C2), upper subaxial (C2-C4), lower subaxial (C4-T1), and total (CO-T1) ROM. Flexion extension, lateral bending, and axial torsion testing with an applied +/-3Nm moment was conducted. The same testing protocol was performed after three-point fixation in which screws were placed at the CO, C4, and T1 (Treatment 2), and also after sequential fixation at all levels from CO through T1 (Treatment 3). Fixation was achieved using an occipital plate, 12-mm lateral mass screws for C3 through C6, and 20-mm lateral mass or pedicle screws were used for C1, C2, C7, and T1. RESULTS: Intact spine testing (Treatment 1) showed statistically significant larger ROM for all segments and for overall ROM when compared with both Treatment 2 (partial fixation CO, C4, and T1) and Treatment 3 (sequential fixation at all levels from the occiput to T1). When comparing Treatment 2 with Treatment 3, no significant difference in flexion extension ROM was detected between axial, upper subaxial, lower subaxial, and total overall ROM (p > .05). Lateral bending showed statistically significant increased ROM for Treatment 2 constructs compared with Treatment 3 constructs in total overall lateral bend ROM. For axial rotation, there was significantly increased ROM for Treatment 2 at the lower subaxial segment and total overall ROM (p < .05) when compared with Treatment 3. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistical difference between the three-point fixation treatment group and the sequential fixation group in flexion extension bending. Lateral bending and axial rotation demonstrated an increase in total overall ROM with partial fixation compared with fixation at all levels. Axial rotation in particular showed increased mobility in the lower cervical spine for the partial fixation group. In the instance where surgeons are not able to apply sequential fixation at diseased levels, especially for the lower subaxial cervical spine, particular attention to limitation of lateral bending and axial rotation by the use of external orthotics must be considered.     

Biomechanical comparison of unicortical versus bicortical C1 lateral mass screw fixation

STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical study of pullout strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1 lateral mass screws using a cadaveric cervical spine model. OBJECTIVE: To compare pullout strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1 lateral mass screws. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The internal carotid artery and hypoglossal nerve lie over the anterior aspect of the lateral mass of the atlas and are at risk from bicortical C1 lateral mass screws. Unicortical screws would reduce the risk of injury to these neurovascular structures; however, no data are available on the relative strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1 lateral mass screws. METHODS: Fifteen cadaveric cervical spine specimens underwent axial pullout testing of C1 lateral mass screws. A unicortical C1 lateral mass screw was placed on 1 side with a contralateral bicortical screw. RESULTS: The mean pullout strengths of the unicortical screws and bicortical screws were 588 N (range, 212 to 1234 N) and 807 N (range, 163 to 1460 N), respectively (P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Bicortical C1 lateral mass screws were significantly stronger than unicortical screws; however, the mean pullout strength of both the unicortical and bicortical C1 screws were greater than previously reported values for subaxial lateral mass screws. On the basis of these data, the clinical necessity for using bicortical screw fixation in all patients must be questioned. If similar strength can be achieved using unicortical C1 lateral mass screw to that currently accepted in the subaxial spine, bicortical screws might not be justified for the C1 lateral mass. However, the ability to extrapolate C1-C2 data to subaxial spine data is uncertain because of the difference in normal physiologic loading at these levels.     

Biomechanical comparison of two-level cervical locking posterior screw/rod and hook/rod techniques.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Locking posterior instrumentation in the cervical spine can be attached using 1) pedicle screws, 2) lateral mass screws, or 3) laminar hooks. This order of options is in order of decreasing technical difficulty and decreasing depth of fixation, and is thought to be in order of decreasing stability. PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether substantially different biomechanical stability can be achieved in a two-level construct using pedicle screws, lateral mass screws, or laminar hooks. Secondarily, we sought to quantify the differential and additional stability provided by an anterior plate. STUDY DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical flexibility experiment comparing three different posterior constructs for stabilizing the cervical spine after three-column injury. METHODS: Twenty-one human cadaveric cervical spines were divided into three groups. Group 1 received lateral mass screws at C5 and C6 and pedicle screws at C7; Group 2 received lateral mass screws at C5 and C6 and laminar hooks at C7; Group 3 received pedicle screws at C5, C6, and C7. Specimens were nondestructively tested intact, after a three-column two-level injury, after posterior C5-C7 rod fixation, after two-level discectomy and anterior plating, and after removing posterior fixation. Angular motion was recorded during flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Posterior hardware was subsequently failed by dorsal loading. RESULTS: Laminar hooks performed well in resisting flexion and extension but were less effective in resisting lateral bending and axial rotation, allowing greater range of motion (ROM) than screw constructs and allowing a significantly greater percentage of the two-level ROM to occur across the hook level than the screw level (p<.03). Adding an anterior plate significantly improved stability in all three groups. With combined hardware, Group 3 resisted axial rotation significantly worse than the other groups. Posterior instrumentation resisted lateral bending significantly better than anterior plating in all groups (p<.04) and resisted flexion and axial rotation significantly better than anterior plating in most cases. Standard deviation of the ROM was greater with anterior than with posterior fixation. There was no significant difference among groups in resistance to failure (p=.74). CONCLUSIONS: Individual pedicle screws are known to outperform lateral mass screws in terms of pullout resistance, but they offered no apparent advantage in terms of construct stability or failure of whole constructs. Larger standard deviations in anterior fixation imply more variability in the quality of fixation. In most loading modes, laminar hooks provided similar stability to lateral mass screws or pedicle screws; caudal laminar hooks are therefore an acceptable alternative posteriorly. Posterior two-level fixation is less variable and slightly more stable than anterior fixation. Combined instrumentation is significantly more stable than either anterior or posterior alone.     

Computer-assisted posterior instrumentation of the cervical and cervico-thoracic spine

Posterior instrumentation of the cervical spine has become increasingly popular in recent years. Dissatisfaction with lateral mass fixation, especially at the cervico-thoracic junction, has led spine surgeons to use pedicle screws. The improved biomechanical stability of pedicle screws and transarticular C1/2 screws allows for shorter instrumentations and improves the repositioning possibilities. Nevertheless, there are potential risks of iatrogenic damage to the spinal cord, nerve roots or the vertebral artery with both techniques. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate whether C1/2 transarticular screws and transpedicular screws can be applied safely and with high accuracy in the cervical spine and the cervico-thoracic junction using a computer-assisted surgery system (CAS system). Posterior instrumentation was performed using the Brainlab VectorVision System (BrainLAB , Heimstetten, Germany) in 19 patients. Surface matching was used for registration. We placed 22 transarticular screws C1/2, 31 cervical pedicle screws, 10 high thoracic pedicle screws and one lateral mass screw C1. The screw position was evaluated postoperatively using CT with multiplanar reconstruction in the screw axis of each screw. None of the transarticular screws or pedicle screws was significantly (>2 mm) misplaced and no screw-related injury to vascular, neurogenic or bony structures was observed. No screw revision was necessary. The mean operation time was 144 min (90–240 min) and the mean blood loss was 234 ml (50–800 ml). C1/2 transarticular screws, as well as transpedicular screws in the cervical spine and the cervico-thoracic junction, can be applied safely and with high accuracy using a CAS system. Computer-assisted instrumentation is recommended especially for pedicle screws at C3–C6.