两种长度的颈椎椎弓根螺钉和侧块螺钉钢板系统的稳定性比较

目的比较两种长度的颈椎椎弓根螺钉和侧块螺钉钛板系统固定的三维稳定性,探讨颈椎椎弓根螺钉的适宜长度。方法18具新鲜颈椎标本,制成C4-5节段三柱损伤模型,分别用长度为20mm、28mm的椎弓根螺钉,以及AXIS侧块螺钉钢板系统三种方法固定,测试它们在前屈、后伸、左右侧弯和轴向旋转运动状态的稳定性。结果两种长度的颈椎椎弓根螺钉钢板系统的稳定性无明显差异,但20mm的椎弓根螺钉固定的稳定性显著高于侧块螺钉固定。结论颈椎经椎弓根固定,选择20mm长度的螺钉,即可提供足够的稳定性,同时安全性相对较高。     

颈椎经关节椎弓根螺钉固定与标准椎弓根螺钉固定的生物力学比较

目的 比较颈椎经关节椎弓根螺钉固定和标准椎弓根螺钉固定的拔出强度.方法 取10具新鲜尸体颈椎标本(C_3～T_1),游离成三个颈椎运动节段(C_(3,4),C_(5,6),C_7T_1).在椎体两侧随机进行经关节椎弓根螺钉固定或标准椎弓根螺钉固定,置入直径3.5 mm皮质骨螺钉.经关节椎弓根螺钉固定以上位椎骨侧块外下象限中点为进钉点,在直视椎弓根下,螺钉在冠状面内倾约45°、矢状面尾倾约50°.由上位椎骨下关节突经关节突关节、下位椎骨的椎弓根,进入下位椎骨的椎体内.标准椎弓根螺钉固定以侧块外上象限中点为进钉点,在直视椎弓根下,螺钉方向参考CT测量结果 ,尽量与椎弓根倾斜角度保持一致,在横断面上内倾约45°、矢状面上螺钉指向椎体的上1/3.在生物力学试验机上行拔出强度试验,比较两种螺钉固定的最大轴向拔出力.结果 颈椎经关节椎弓根螺钉固定平均最大轴向拨出力为(694±42)N,标准椎弓根螺钉固定为(670±36)N,两者比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 颈椎后路经关节椎弓根螺钉固定的拔出强度大干标准椎弓根螺钉固定,从生物力学强度方面考虑经关节椎弓根螺钉固定可以作为标准椎弓根螺钉固定的一种补充方法.     

寰椎侧块螺钉与寰椎椎弓根螺钉的解剖与生物力学对比研究

目的对寰椎侧块螺钉和寰椎椎弓根螺钉进行解剖和生物力学研究,为临床选择寰椎螺钉的固定方式提供依据。方法利用12例新鲜标本的寰椎进行单皮质和双皮质的椎弓根螺钉或侧块螺钉固定,测试比较其螺钉拔出强度和钉道长度。结果寰椎椎弓根螺钉的最大进钉长度为29·79mm±1·68mm,其中10·15mm在寰椎后弓内,19·65mm在寰椎侧块内。寰椎侧块螺钉的最大进钉长度为24·88mm±0·41mm,其进钉点与寰椎后弓后缘的平均距离为9·93mm±1·35mm。双皮质寰椎椎弓根螺钉的拔出力量最大,平均1757·0N±318·7N;单皮质寰椎椎弓根螺钉(1192·5N±172·6N)与双皮质寰椎侧块螺钉(1243·8N±350·0N)无明显差异,单皮质寰椎侧块螺钉最小(794·5N±314·8N)。结论在同时适用寰椎椎弓根螺钉和寰椎侧块螺钉固定的患者,宜首先选择寰椎椎弓根螺钉固定,次选寰椎侧块螺钉固定。     

胸椎椎弓根根外固定螺钉拔出力的实验研究

目的:比较两种胸椎椎弓根根外固定方法与经椎弓根固定方法的螺钉拔出强度,评价胸椎椎弓根根外固定的生物力学效果。方法:新鲜胸椎标本4具,共32个肋骨-椎骨序列,根据螺钉固定方法不同分为3组,A组采用经椎弓根固定,B组采用经横突-椎体固定,C组采用经改良肋横突法固定。根据所用螺钉规格不同将其分为4种不同测试条件:D1,螺钉直径5.5mm,长度40mm;D2,螺钉直径5.5mm,长度45mm;D3,螺钉直径6.5mm,长度45mm;D4,螺钉直径6.5mm,长度50mm。测试3种固定方法下的螺钉拔出力,并做统计学分析对比。结果:D1条件下A组拔出力为787.0±119.3N,B组为706.2±109.4N,C组为616.1±82.3N,3组间比较有显著性差异(P<0.01);D2条件下A组拔出力为862.3±128.7N,B组为811.4±113.6N,C组为655.1±92.2N,A、B组间比较无显著性差异(P>0.05),A、B组与C组比较有显著性差异(P<0.01);D3条件下,A组拔出力为855.3±117.1N,B组为938.0±131.5N,C组为861.3±117.8N,A、C组间比较无显著性差异(P>0.05),A、C组与B组比较有显著性差异(P<0.01);D4条件下A组拔出力为864.3±120.9N,B组为959.6±135.2N,C组为941.2±115.4N,A组与B、C组比较均有显著性差异(P<0.01),B、C组间比较无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论:使用直径6.5mm、长度45～50mm的螺钉固定时,胸椎椎弓根根外固定螺钉拔出力优于椎弓根固定,有较好的生物力学效果。     

寰椎后路单或双层皮质骨螺钉固定强度的生物力学评价

目的:测量单层皮质骨和双层皮质骨寰椎侧块螺钉固定与寰椎椎弓根螺钉固定的强度,为临床选择寰椎后路螺钉固定的方式提供生物力学依据。方法:利用12例新鲜的寰椎和第三颈椎标本,进行单层皮质骨和双层皮质骨的椎弓根螺钉或侧块螺钉固定,测试并比较其螺钉拔出强度。结果:双层皮质骨寰椎椎弓根螺钉固定的拔出力最大,为1757.0±318.7N;单层皮质骨寰椎椎弓根螺钉固定(1192.5±172.6N)与双层皮质骨寰椎侧块螺钉固定(1243.8±350.0N)及单层皮质骨C3椎弓根螺钉固定(1121.6±224.6N)的拔出力之间均无明显差异。结论:应用寰椎侧块螺钉固定时宜选用双层皮质骨螺钉固定,而寰椎椎弓根螺钉固定选用单层皮质骨螺钉即可。     

枢椎椎板螺钉与椎弓根螺钉抗拔出强度的比较

目的:比较枢椎椎板螺钉与枢椎椎弓根螺钉的抗拔出强度,为临床应用枢椎椎板螺钉固定提供生物力学依据。方法:在7具成年男性新鲜尸体枢椎标本上进行枢椎单皮质椎弓根螺钉和双皮质椎板螺钉固定,测试螺钉拔出力。结果:单皮质枢椎椎弓根螺钉的最大拔出力平均为875.3±403.2N,双皮质枢椎椎板螺钉的最大拔出力平均为679.5±308.2N;椎弓根螺钉的最大拔出力大于椎板螺钉,但二者之间无统计学差异。结论:枢椎椎板螺钉进行双皮质固定具有可靠的力学固定强度,可作为枢椎椎弓根螺钉的补充固定技术。     

新型寰椎内径锥形螺钉的设计与拔出力的测试

目的比较两种设计的寰椎椎弓根钉的最大拔出力,为临床选择寰椎推弓根钉类型提供生物力学依据。方法设计制作两种寰椎椎弓根钉,根据螺纹部分分为皮质骨螺钉(A型螺钉)、内径锥形螺钉(B型螺钉),利用24节新鲜猪寰椎标本,置入两种类型的椎弓根钉,进行拔出试验,测定每种螺钉的最大拔出力,进行统计学分析比较。结果同一长度,不同设计的螺钉抗拔出力接近,均无显著性差异;同一直径两种设计的螺钉,28 mm比26 mm的抗拔出力略大,但均无显著性差异。结论新型寰椎内径锥形螺钉(3.0 mm)抗拔力高,螺钉根部强度好,抗弯曲、断裂性能好,可提供足够的即刻稳定性,是寰椎椎弓根固定的理想螺钉类型。     

下颈椎经关节螺钉固定的生物力学研究

目的比较下颈椎经关节螺钉3层皮质和4层皮质固定的生物力学拔出力的区别。方法10具新鲜尸体颈椎标本（C3-T1），游离成3个颈椎运动节段（C3～C4、C5～C6、C7～T1），在椎体两侧随机进行经关节螺钉3层皮质和4层皮质固定，置入直径为3．5mm的皮质骨螺钉。置入经关节螺钉行拔出力试验，比较经关节螺钉2种固定方式的最大轴向拔出力。结果下颈椎经关节螺钉4层皮质固定的平均拔出力为430N，而3层皮质固定的平均拔出力为412N，但两者间差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。经关节螺钉两种固定方式在颈椎各节段间差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论下颈椎后路经关节螺钉3层皮质固定的力学性能与4层皮质固定差异并不明显。经关节螺钉3层皮质固定可能在减少和避免置钉相关的神经血管损伤并发症方面有着重要的临床意义。     

内锥及外锥形椎弓根螺钉的生物力学研究

目的　评价内锥及外锥形椎弓根螺钉固定的生物力学特点。方法　两具成人新鲜腰椎标本 ,选取六个完整椎体 ,随机在两侧椎弓根内分别打入两种形状的椎弓根螺钉 ,在试验机上做椎弓根螺钉拔出实验。结果　外锥形椎弓根螺钉在正常椎弓根内的最大拨出力为 996 17± 5 4 6 9N ,内锥形椎弓根螺钉在正常椎弓根内的最大拔出力为 6 6 7 17± 2 4 74N ,差异有显著性意义。结论　椎弓根螺钉设计成外锥形可提高螺钉的拔出力     

颈椎椎间孔螺钉、侧块螺钉及椎弓根螺钉的生物力学强度比较

目的比较椎间孔螺钉(paravertebral foramen screws,PVFS)、侧块螺钉(lateral mass screws,LMS)与椎弓根螺钉(pedicle screws,PS)的生物力学强度。方法选取8具新鲜冰冻尸体,男4具、女4具,死亡时年龄(45.3±11.2)岁。CT检查排除骨折、畸形、感染、肿瘤等疾病引起的骨质破坏或其他异常,最终筛选出30个C3~C6颈椎脊椎。将制备完成的颈椎节段标本顺序编号,应用随机数字表法将其随机分为三组,每组10个标本,分别用于双侧置入椎间孔螺钉(4.5 mm×12 mm螺钉)、侧块螺钉(3.5 mm×14 mm)与椎弓根螺钉(3.5 mm×24 mm螺钉)。随机选取一侧进行直接拔出力测试(速度5 mm/min),另一侧进行疲劳测试(位移±1.0 mm,频率1 Hz,循环500次)及残余拔出力测试。结果椎间孔螺钉的直接拔出力为(327.10±17.07)N,侧块螺钉为(305.71±11.63)N,椎弓根螺钉为(635.67±22.82)N。椎间孔螺钉的残余拔出力为(265.62±18.19)N,侧块螺钉为(192.80±17.10)N,椎弓根螺钉为(494.89±41.79)N。椎间孔螺钉、侧块螺钉和椎弓根螺钉的残余拔出力较直接拔出力均有不同程度降低(tPVFS=7.795,tLMS=17.267,tPS=9.349,P<0.001),分别下降了18.8%、36.93%和22.15%。椎弓根螺钉的直接拔出力高于椎间孔螺钉和侧块螺钉(t=34.245,t=40.741,P<0.001),椎间孔螺钉略高于侧块螺钉(t=3.275,P=0.004)。残余拔出力椎弓根螺钉最高,椎间孔螺钉次之,侧块螺钉最小(F=314.619,P<0.001)。椎间孔螺钉的首次循环载荷和首次达到设定位置时载荷均高于侧块螺钉(t=3.625,P=0.002;t=5.388,P<0.001)和椎弓根螺钉(t=2.575,P=0.019;t=2.680,P=0.015),侧块螺钉与椎弓根螺钉的差异无统计学意义(t=0.609,P=0.550;t=1.953,P=0.067)。椎间孔螺钉与椎弓根螺钉的末次循环载荷均高于侧块螺钉(t=5.341,P<0.001;t=3.439,P=0.003),但椎间孔螺钉与椎弓根螺钉的差异无统计学意义(t=1.606,P=0.126)。结论椎间孔螺钉的直接拔出力略高于侧块螺钉,残余拔出力明显高于侧块螺钉,抗疲劳性能与椎弓根螺钉相近并明显优于侧块螺钉,因此,颈椎椎间孔螺钉具有作为侧块螺钉和椎弓根螺钉有效替代的潜能。     

Cervical pedicle screws vs. lateral mass screws: uniplanar fatigue analysis and residual pullout strengths

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although successful clinical use of cervical pedicle screws has been reported, anatomical studies have shown the possibility for serious iatrogenic injury. However, there are only a limited number of reports on the biomechanical properties of these screws which evaluate the potential benefits of their application. PURPOSE: To investigate if the pull-out strengths after cyclic uniplanar loading of cervical pedicle screws are superior to lateral mass screws. STUDY DESIGN: An in vitro biomechanical study. METHODS: Twenty fresh-frozen disarticulated human vertebrae (C3-C7) were randomized to receive both a 3.5 mm cervical pedicle screw and lateral mass screw. The screws were cyclically loaded 200 times in the sagittal plane. The amount of displacement was recorded every 50 cycles. After cyclical loading, the screws were pulled and tensile load to failure was recorded. Bone density was measured in each specimen and maximum screw insertion torque was recorded for each screw. RESULTS: During loading the two screw types showed similar stability initially, however the lateral mass screws rapidly loosened compared to the pedicle screws. The rate of loosening in the lateral mass screws was widely variable, while the performance of the pedicle screws was very consistent. The pullout strengths were significantly higher for the cervical pedicle screws (1214 N vs. 332 N) and 40% failed by fracture of the pedicle rather than screw pullout. Pedicle screw pullout strengths correlated with both screw insertion torque and specimen bone density. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical pedicle screws demonstrated a significantly lower rate of loosening at the bone-screw interface, as well as higher strength after fatigue testing. These biomechanical strengths may justify their use in certain limited clinical applications.     

Stress relaxation of bone significantly affects the pull-out behavior of pedicle screws.

The initial fixation strength of pedicle screws is commonly tested using a standard pull-out test with load applied at a constant rate. This method overlooks the cyclic nature of in situ loading responsible for clinical failure. This study was undertaken to determine the effects of stress relaxation properties at the bone-screw interface on screw fixation strength. Pedicle screws were inserted into calf lumbar vertebrae using a paired testing array. After embedding and mounting in a custom fixture, axial pull-out tests were performed at the rates of 1, 5, and 25 mm/min. For each vertebra, one screw was pulled at a continuous rate. The other screw was pulled at increments of 0.5 mm, at the same rate, with 1000 s pause between increments. Peak load, energy-to-failure, displacement-to-failure, and stiffness were calculated for each screw pull-out test. Two-way ANOVA showed that the standard pull-out method yielded significantly higher peak loads (p < 0.05) at faster pull-out rates and higher stiffnesses (p < 0.05) at all rates compared to the stress relaxation pull-out protocol. These results suggest that the stress relaxation properties of bone significantly affect the pull-out behavior of pedicle screws, reducing the peak load and stiffness values observed during testing. This mode of testing may provide a better biomechanical model of screw pull-out failure and a more accurate estimate of initial fixation strength.     

Pullout strength of misplaced pedicle screws in the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae - A cadaveric study

Background:

The objective of this cadaveric study was to analyze the effects of iatrogenic pedicle perforations from screw misplacement on the mean pullout strength of lower thoracic and lumbar pedicle screws. We also investigated the effect of bone mineral density (BMD), diameter of pedicle screws, and the region of spine on the pullout strength of pedicle screws.

Materials and Methods:

Sixty fresh human cadaveric vertebrae (D10–L2) were harvested. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan of vertebrae was done for BMD. Titanium pedicle screws of different diameters (5.2 and 6.2 mm) were inserted in the thoracic and lumbar segments after dividing the specimens into three groups: a) standard pedicle screw (no cortical perforation); b) screw with medial cortical perforation; and c) screw with lateral cortical perforation. Finally, pullout load of pedicle screws was recorded using INSTRON Universal Testing Machine.

Results:

Compared with standard placement, medially misplaced screws had 9.4% greater mean pullout strength and laterally misplaced screws had 47.3% lesser mean pullout strength. The pullout strength of the 6.2 mm pedicle screws was 33% greater than that of the 5.2 mm pedicle screws. The pullout load of pedicle screws in lumbar vertebra was 13.9% greater than that in the thoracic vertebra (P = 0.105), but it was not statistically significant. There was no significant difference between pullout loads of vertebra with different BMD (P = 0.901).

Conclusion:

The mean pullout strength was less with lateral misplaced pedicle screws while medial misplaced pedicle screw had more pullout strength. The pullout load of 6.2 mm screws was greater than that of 5.2 mm pedicle screws. No significant correlation was found between bone mineral densities and the pullout strength of vertebra. Similarly, the pullout load of screw placed in thoracic and lumbar vertebrae was not significantly different.     

下颈椎后路3种固定技术的拔出强度研究

目的评价下颈椎后路侧块螺钉、椎弓根螺钉、经关节螺钉3种固定方法的拔出强度。方法6具新鲜颈椎尸体标本（C3～C7）,分别用侧块螺钉Roy-Camille法（LMS）、椎弓根螺钉（TPS）和经关节螺钉植入法（TAS）拧入螺钉,使用万能材料实验机,以100、200、300、400、500、600N分级加载,以18mm/min加载速度进行螺钉拔出实验,测试其最大拔出力、最大拔出能量。结果LMS最大拔出力为（426±38）N,最大拔出能量为（5.26±0.39）J;TPS最大拔出力为（502±42）N,最大拔出能量为（7.18±0.67）J;TAS最大拔出力为（482±40）N,最大拔出能量为（6.68±0.47）J。LMS的最大拔出力和最大拔出能量均小于TPS和TAS（P〈0.05）,而TPS和TAS之间相近,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论经关节螺钉拔出强度优于侧块螺钉,而椎弓根螺钉拔出强度最大。     

枢椎棘突螺钉与椎弓根螺钉的解剖学比较

目的：比较枢椎棘突螺钉和椎弓根螺钉的技术难度和相关解剖学参数,探讨枢椎棘突螺钉固定的可行性和安全性。方法：自2010年2月至7月,选取10具颈椎标本,男5具,女5具,年龄45～76岁,平均60.5岁。将标本俯卧,颈部置于中立位。从C1-C3剔除颈部后侧所有的软组织,以清楚地暴露枢椎侧块和峡部。枢椎椎体左右侧任意选择进行棘突螺钉和椎弓根螺钉固定,各10枚螺钉,置入直径为4.0mm的皮质骨螺钉。枢椎棘突螺钉以枢椎棘突螺钉的进钉点选择为棘突的基底部、棘突和椎板的交界处,进钉角度水平置钉,螺钉由对侧棘突基底部穿出,形成双层皮质固定;枢椎椎弓根螺钉进钉点为枢椎下关节突根部中点,钉道方向与矢状面夹角15°～20°,与横断面夹角约30°。螺钉置入后,使用多层螺旋CT扫描机对标本进行扫描重建。测量螺钉在骨内的实际深度,记录椎弓根螺钉和棘突螺钉置钉失败、穿破椎弓根、进入椎管或置入横突孔的螺钉数目。结果：枢椎棘突螺钉和椎弓根螺钉的置入均无明显的技术困难。棘突螺钉未见螺钉置入椎管和劈裂棘突,但椎弓根螺钉有1枚螺钉突出椎弓根外侧皮质,侵犯横突孔。枢椎棘突螺钉的平均钉道长度为（21.4±1.4）mm,稍短于枢椎椎弓根螺钉的（23.7±1.0）mm,但两者间差异无统计学意义（t=-4.387,P〉0.05）。结论：枢椎棘突基底部具有螺钉固定的可行性,枢椎棘突螺钉较椎弓根螺钉固定相对安全、简单。     

Comparative biomechanical analysis of an improved novel pedicle screw with sheath and bone cement

STUDY DESIGN: A human cadaveric biomechanical study of fixation strength of an improved novel pedicle screw (NPS) with cement and a conventional screw. OBJECTIVE: To clarify whether the NPS has adequate fixation strength without leakage in vertebrae with low bone quality. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The fixation strength of pedicle screws decreases in frail spines of elderly osteoporotic patients. Augmentation of screw fixation with bone cement must be balanced against increased difficulty of screw removal and risk of cement leakage. We developed the NPS consisting of an internal screw and an outer sheath to mitigate the disadvantages of cement augmentation. METHODS: The T12 and L1 vertebrae obtained from 18 formalin preserved cadavers (11 males and 7 females; mean age, 82.7 y) were used. The mean bone mineral density was 0.39 +/- 0.14 g/cm2. The NPS was inserted into one pedicle of each vertebra and the control screw, a Compact CD2 screw, was inserted into the contralateral pedicle. Both screws were 6mm in diameter and 40 mm in length. Pull-out tests were performed at a crosshead speed of 10 mm/min. Cyclic loading tests were performed with a maximum 250 N load at 2 Hz until 30,000 cycles. RESULTS: Cement leakage did not occur in any of the specimens tested. The mean maximum force at pull-out was 760 +/- 344 N for the NPS and 346 +/- 172N for the control screw (P < 0.01). Loosening of 50% of the screws was observed after 17,000 cycles of the NPS and after 30 cycles of the control screw. The hazard ratio of loosening was 19.6 (95% confidence interval 19.3-19.9) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The NPS showed a significantly higher mechanical strength than the control screw in both pull-out tests and cyclic loading tests. The NPS showed more than adequate strength without cement leakage.     

不同椎弓根螺钉固定及骨水泥强化方法在骨质疏松骶骨上锚定强度的比较

目的:通过比较不同椎弓根螺钉固定及骨水泥强化方法在骨质疏松骶骨上的锚定强度,探讨骶骨椎弓根螺钉松动后的理想补救技术.方法:应用11具成人新鲜骶骨标本,经骨密度测试确认为骨质疏松后,在同一骶骨标本上,依次建立5种骶骨螺钉固定模型,A组,单皮质椎弓根螺钉固定(左侧):B组,双皮质椎弓根螺钉固定(右侧);C组,PMMA钉道强化后单皮质椎弓根螺钉固定(建立于A组螺钉拔出后);D组,PMMA钉道强化后侧翼钉固定(右侧);E组,后凸成形技术支持下的PMMA强化后侧翼钉固定(左侧).应用MTS材料测试机进行轴向拔出测试,记录各种骶骨螺钉固定技术的最大拔出力并进行比较.结果:11具标本的骨密度为0.55～0.79g,cm~2,平均0.71±0.08g/cm~2.A～E组最大拔出力分别为508±128N、685±126N、846±230N、543±121N和702±144N.A组与D组间无显著性差异(P>0.05),且均显著低于B、C和E组(P<0.05);B组与E组间无显著性差异(P>0.05),但两组的拔出力均显著低于C组(P<0.05).结论:在骨质疏松患者的骶骨固定中,双皮质骶骨椎弓根钉较单皮质具有更高的锚定强度.骶骨椎弓根钉一旦发生松动,PMMA钉道强化和后凸成形技术支持下的PMMA强化后的侧翼钉固定均可成为理想的补救手段.     

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.     

Biomechanical comparison of pedicle screws versus spinous process screws in C2 vertebra: A cadaveric study

Background:

Biomechanical studies have shown C2 pedicle screw to be the most robust in insertional torque and pullout strength. However, C2 pedicle screw placement is still technically challenging. Smaller C2 pedicles or medial localization of the vertebral artery may preclude safe C2 pedicle screw placement in some patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the pullout strength of spinous process screws with pedicle screws in the C2.

Materials and Methods:

Eight fresh human cadaveric cervical spine specimens (C2) were harvested and subsequently frozen to −20°C. After being thawed to room temperature, each specimen was debrided of remaining soft tissue and labeled. A customs jig as used to clamp each specimen for screw insertion firmly. Screws were inserted into the vertebral body pairs on each side using one of two methods. The pedicle screws were inserted in usual manner as in previous biomechanical studies. The starting point for spinous process screw insertion was located at the junction of the lamina and the spinous process and the direction of the screw was about 0° caudally in the sagittal plane and about 0° medially in the axial plane. Each vertebrae was held in a customs jig, which was attached to material testing machine (Material Testing System Inc., Changchun, China). A coupling device that fit around the head of the screw was used to pull out each screw at a loading rate of 2 mm/min. The uniaxial load to failure was recorded in Newton''st dependent test (for paired samples) was used to test for significance.

Results:

The mean load to failure was 387 N for the special protection scheme and 465 N for the protection scheme without significant difference (t = −0.862, P = 0.403). In all but three instances (38%), the spinous process pullout values exceeded the values for the pedicle screws. The working distances for the spinous process screws was little shorter than pedicle screws in each C2 specimen.

Conclusion:

Spinous process screws provide comparable pullout strength to pedicle screws of the C2. Spinous process screws may provide an alternative to pedicle screws fixation, especially with unusual anatomy or stripped screws.