Literature DB >> 19214096

C1 pedicle screws versus C1 lateral mass screws: comparisons of pullout strengths and biomechanical stabilities.

Xiang-Yang Ma1, Qing-Shui Yin, Zeng-Hui Wu, Hong Xia, Jing-Fa Liu, Ming Xiang, Wei-Dong Zhao, Shi-Zhen Zhong.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical study.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the pullout strengths and the biomechanical stabilities afforded by C1 lateral mass screws and C1 pedicle screws using bicortical and unicortical fixation techniques. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Posterior screw fixation techniques in the atlas including C1 lateral mass screw and C1 pedicle screw. The shortcomings of C1 lateral mass screw technique and potential risks of bicortical fixation method were recently described; C1 pedicle screw technique with unicortical fixation might overcome these anatomic and clinical drawbacks. However, it is unknown whether the biomechanical characteristics of unicortical C1 pedicle screw are comparable with that of bicortical C1 lateral mass screw. METHODS.: Bicortical or unicortical C1 pedicle screws and C1 lateral mass screws were inserted into 12 adult fresh human C1 specimens. Pullout strength was evaluated using a material testing machine. The construct's stability of bicortical C1 lateral mass screws or unicortical C1 pedicle screws incorporating unicortical C2 pedicle screws was compared with bilateral transarticular screws using another 6 fresh cervical cadaver spines. Pullout strength and biomechanical stability differences were compared statistically.
RESULTS: Bicortical C1 pedicle screws provided the biggest pullout strength (1757.0 +/- 318.7 N) of all 4 methods, whereas unicortical C1 lateral mass screws provided the weakest(794.5 +/- 314.8 N). However, there were no statistically significant differences between bicortical C1 lateral mass screws (1243.8 +/- 350.0 N) and unicortical C1 pedicle screws (1192.5 +/- 172.6 N). Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference of biomechanical construct stability between unicortical C1 pedicle screw-rod constructs and bicortical C1 lateral mass screw-rod constructs.
CONCLUSION: C1 pedicle screws are stiffer than C1 lateral mass screws. Unicortical C1 pedicle screw provided the same pullout resistance and three-dimensional stability as bicortical C1 lateral mass fixation. Although lateral mass screw placement into C1 requires bicortical purchase, pedicle screw insertion into the atlas only requires unicortical fixation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19214096     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318193a21b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  24 in total

1.  Comparison of perpendicular to the coronal plane versus medial inclination for atlas pedicle screw insertion: an anatomic and radiological study in human cadavers.

Authors:  Jun Ma; Jian Tang; Deguang Wang; Yucheng Zhu; Tao Sui; Xiaojian Cao
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-08-15       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Prevalence and Morphologic Characteristics of Ponticulus Posticus: Analysis Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography.

Authors:  Ahmet Ercan Sekerci; Emrah Soylu; Mehtap Payveren Arikan; Gozde Ozcan; Mehmet Amuk; Fatma Kocoglu
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2015-11-05

3.  Biomechanical advantage of C1 pedicle screws over C1 lateral mass screws: a cadaveric study.

Authors:  Florian Fensky; Rebecca A Kueny; Kay Sellenschloh; Klaus Püschel; Michael M Morlock; Johannes M Rueger; Wolfgang Lehmann; Gerd Huber; Nils Hansen-Algenstaedt
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-12-31       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Novel unilateral C1 double screw and ipsilateral C2 pedicle screw placement combined with contralateral laminar screw-rod fixation for atlantoaxial instability.

Authors:  Lei Shi; Kai Shen; Rui Deng; Zheng-Jian Yan; Kai-Lu Liang; Liang Chen; Zhen-Yong Ke; Zhong-Liang Deng
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Evaluation of anatomic landmarks and safe zones for screw placement in the atlas via the posterior arch.

Authors:  Matthias Gebauer; Florian Barvencik; Daniel Briem; Jan P Kolb; Sebastian Seitz; Johannes M Rueger; Klaus Püschel; Michael Amling
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-10-31       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Is the 4 mm height of the vertebral artery groove really a limitation of C1 pedicle screw insertion?

Authors:  Da-Geng Huang; Si-Min He; Jun-Wei Pan; Hua Hui; Hui-Min Hu; Bao-Rong He; Hui Li; Xue-Fang Zhang; Ding-Jun Hao
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-02-09       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Posterior C1-C2 screw and rod instrument for reduction and fixation of basilar invagination with atlantoaxial dislocation.

Authors:  Sheng Li Guo; Ding Biao Zhou; Xin Guang Yu; Yi Heng Yin; Guang Yu Qiao
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-06-18       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  A biomechanical rationale for C1-ring osteosynthesis as treatment for displaced Jefferson burst fractures with incompetency of the transverse atlantal ligament.

Authors:  Heiko Koller; Herbert Resch; Mark Tauber; Juliane Zenner; Peter Augat; Rainer Penzkofer; Frank Acosta; Klaus Kolb; Anton Kathrein; Wolfgang Hitzl
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-04-13       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Applied anatomy of screw placement via the posterior arch of the atlas and anatomy-based refinements of the technique.

Authors:  Gergely Bodon; Andras Grimm; Bernhard Hirt; Harald Seifarth; Pavel Barsa
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2016-04-22

10.  Sudden cerebral infarction after interventional vertebral artery embolism for vertebral artery injury during removal of C1-C2 pedicle screw fixation: a case report.

Authors:  Yi Yang; Hao Liu; Litai Ma; Jiancheng Zeng; Yueming Song; Xiaodong Xie
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-09-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.