BACKGROUND: No clear biomechanical data exist regarding where to place the caudal end of a screw-rod occipitocervical instrumentation construct. OBJECTIVE: This study examines whether range of motion (ROM) from the occiput to C2 is altered by subaxial extension of occipitocervical instrumentation constructs. METHODS: Cadaver specimens underwent intact biomechanical testing followed by destabilization via an odontoid osteotomy. Subsequent biomechanical testing was performed of four occipitocervical constructs: occipital plate + C2 pars screws (construct 1), occipital plate + C2 pars screws + C4 lateral mass screws (construct 2), occipital plate + C1-C2 transarticular screws (construct 3), and occipital plate + C1-C2 transarticular screws + C4 lateral mass screws (construct 4). RESULTS: All constructs significantly reduced occiput-C2 ROM in all loading modes compared with the intact cervical spine, with one exception (construct 1, lateral bending). No significant ROM differences were noted when C4 lateral mass screws (construct 4) were added to construct 3. Addition of C4 lateral mass screws (construct 2) to construct 1 decreased the ROM in the flexion mode only. No significant ROM differences were seen between construct 2 and construct 3 in any loading mode. CONCLUSION: The addition of subaxial instrumentation to occipitocervical instrumentation constructs in this study decreased occiput-C2 ROM only when the construct was anchored by C2 pars screws and only in flexion. Screws that cross the C1 to C2 articulation provide stable fixation when combined with an occipital plate, and the addition of subaxial instrumentation to this construct for stabilizing the occipitocervical junction does not significantly decrease ROM.
BACKGROUND: No clear biomechanical data exist regarding where to place the caudal end of a screw-rod occipitocervical instrumentation construct. OBJECTIVE: This study examines whether range of motion (ROM) from the occiput to C2 is altered by subaxial extension of occipitocervical instrumentation constructs. METHODS: Cadaver specimens underwent intact biomechanical testing followed by destabilization via an odontoid osteotomy. Subsequent biomechanical testing was performed of four occipitocervical constructs: occipital plate + C2 pars screws (construct 1), occipital plate + C2 pars screws + C4 lateral mass screws (construct 2), occipital plate + C1-C2 transarticular screws (construct 3), and occipital plate + C1-C2 transarticular screws + C4 lateral mass screws (construct 4). RESULTS: All constructs significantly reduced occiput-C2 ROM in all loading modes compared with the intact cervical spine, with one exception (construct 1, lateral bending). No significant ROM differences were noted when C4 lateral mass screws (construct 4) were added to construct 3. Addition of C4 lateral mass screws (construct 2) to construct 1 decreased the ROM in the flexion mode only. No significant ROM differences were seen between construct 2 and construct 3 in any loading mode. CONCLUSION: The addition of subaxial instrumentation to occipitocervical instrumentation constructs in this study decreased occiput-C2 ROM only when the construct was anchored by C2 pars screws and only in flexion. Screws that cross the C1 to C2 articulation provide stable fixation when combined with an occipital plate, and the addition of subaxial instrumentation to this construct for stabilizing the occipitocervical junction does not significantly decrease ROM.
Authors: Arunit J S Chugh; Mohit Patel; Lorayne Chua; Baha Arafah; Nicholas C Bambakidis; Abhishek Ray Journal: J Neurosurg Case Lessons Date: 2021-06-07