Literature DB >> 11132983

Cervical transfacet versus lateral mass screws: a biomechanical comparison.

J W Klekamp1, J L Ugbo, J G Heller, W C Hutton.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11132983     DOI: 10.1097/00002517-200012000-00009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord        ISSN: 0895-0385


  15 in total

1.  Biomechanical comparison of transfacet screws to lateral mass screw-rod constructs in the lower cervical spine.

Authors:  Jie Tong; Wei Ji; Ruozhou Zhou; Zhiping Huang; Sheting Liu; Qingan Zhu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-11-03       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  [Instability of the upper cervical spine due to rheumatism].

Authors:  C E Heyde; U Weber; R Kayser
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Lateral radiological evaluation of transarticular screw placement in the lower cervical spine.

Authors:  Rongming Xu; Liujun Zhao; Bo Chai; Weihu Ma; Huajie Xia; Guoping Wang; Weiyu Jiang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-01-08       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Biomechanical evaluation of an interfacet joint decompression and stabilization system.

Authors:  Jeremi M Leasure; Jenni Buckley
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 2.097

5.  Posterior stabilization of cervical spine injuries using the Roy-Camille plates: a long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Demitrios Korres; Vassilios S Nikolaou; Maria Kaseta; Demetrios Evangelopoulos; Kostas Markatos; John Lazarettos; Nicolas Efstathopoulos
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2013-12-10

6.  Posterior fixation of subaxial cervical spine fractures in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.

Authors:  Michael Cornefjord; M Alemany; C Olerud
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-05-18       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  A novel radiographic targeting guide for percutaneous placement of transfacet screws in the cervical spine with limited fluoroscopy: A cadaveric feasibility study.

Authors:  David M Jackson; Jacqueline E Karp; Joseph R O'Brien; D Greg Anderson; Daniel E Gelb; Steven C Ludwig
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2012-12-01

8.  In vitro biomechanical evaluation of four fixation techniques for distractive-flexion injury stage 3 of the cervical spine.

Authors:  Thomas Henriques; Bryan W Cunningham; Paul C McAfee; Claes Olerud
Journal:  Ups J Med Sci       Date:  2015-03-06       Impact factor: 2.384

9.  Bilateral posterior cervical cages provide biomechanical stability: assessment of stand-alone and supplemental fixation for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Authors:  Leonard I Voronov; Krzysztof B Siemionow; Robert M Havey; Gerard Carandang; Frank M Phillips; Avinash G Patwardhan
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2016-07-13

10.  Surgical Outcomes of Cervical Myelopathy in Patients with Athetoid Cerebral Palsy: A 5-Year Follow-Up.

Authors:  Kazuyuki Watanabe; Koji Otani; Takuya Nikaido; Kinshi Kato; Hiroshi Kobayashi; Shoji Yabuki; Shin-Ichi Kikuchi; Shin-Ichi Konno
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2017-12-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.