Literature DB >> 21377608

Biomechanical analysis of occipitocervical stability afforded by three fixation techniques.

Melvin D Helgeson1, Ronald A Lehman, Rick C Sasso, Anton E Dmitriev, Andrew W Mack, K Daniel Riew.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Occipital condyle screws appear to be a novel technique that demands biomechanical consideration. It has the potential to achieve fixation anterior to the axis of rotation while offering a point of fixation in line with the C1/C2 screws.
PURPOSE: To compare the segmental stability and range of motion (ROM) of standard occipitocervical (OC) screw/rod and plate constructs versus a new technique that incorporates occipital condyle fixation. STUDY
DESIGN: Human cadaveric biomechanical analysis.
METHODS: After intact analysis, 10 fresh-frozen human cadaveric OC spine specimens were instrumented bilaterally with C1 lateral mass screws and C2 pedicle screws. Additional occipital instrumentation was tested in random order under the following conditions: standard occipitocervical plate/rod system (Vertex Max; Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA); occipital condyle screws alone; and occipital condyle screws with the addition of an eyelet screw placed into the occiput bilaterally. After nondestructive ROM testing, specimens were evaluated under computed tomography (CT) and underwent destructive forward flexion failure comparing Group 1 to Group 3.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in OC (Occiput-C1) axial rotation and flexion/extension ROM between the standard occipitocervical plate/rod system (Group 1) and the occipital condyle screws with one eyelet screw bilaterally (Group 3). Furthermore, the occipital condyle screws alone (Group 2) did allow significantly more flexion/extension compared with Group 1. Interestingly, the two groups with occipital condyle screws (Groups 2 and 3) had significantly less lateral bending compared with Group 1. During CT analysis, the mean occipital condyle width was 10.8 mm (range, 9.1-12.7 mm), and the mean condylar length was 24.3 mm (range, 20.2-28.5). On destructive testing, there was no significant difference in forward flexion failure between Groups 1 and 3.
CONCLUSIONS: With instrumentation across the mobile OC junction, our results indicate that similar stability can be achieved with occipital condyle screws/eyelet screws compared with the standard occipitocervical plate/rod system. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21377608     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2011.01.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  7 in total

1.  Free-hand placement of occipital condyle screws: a cadaveric study.

Authors:  Mohamed Ali El-Gaidi; Ehab Mohamed Eissa; Ehab A A El-Shaarawy
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-07-29       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  The causes and treatment strategies for the postoperative complications of occipitocervical fusion: a 316 cases retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Baorong He; Liang Yan; Zhengwei Xu; Zhen Chang; Dingjun Hao
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-05-18       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Basilar invagination associated with chiari malformation type I: A literature review.

Authors:  José Nazareno Pearce de Oliveira Brito; Bruna Afonso Dos Santos; Isys Fialho Nascimento; Leonardo Augusto Martins; Cléciton Braga Tavares
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 2.365

4.  Comparison of imaging parameters pre- and post- reductive procedure for atlantoaxial dislocation via posterior fixation using pedicle screw and rod: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Jia Shao; Yanzheng Gao; Kun Gao; Zhenghong Yu
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2019-10-15       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Ehlers-Danlos syndrome-associated craniocervical instability with cervicomedullary syndrome: Comparing outcome of craniocervical fusion with occipital bone versus occipital condyle fixation.

Authors:  Alexander Spiessberger; Nicholas Dietz; Basil Gruter; Justin Virojanapa
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2020-11-26

6.  Evaluation of an occipito-cervico fusion with a new implant design: a biomechanical study.

Authors:  Filippo Migliorini; Alice Baroncini; Yasser El Mansy; Valentin Quack; Andreas Prescher; Max Mischer; Johannes Greven; Markus Tingart; Jörg Eschweiler
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-03-06       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Anatomical Parameters for Occipital Condyle Screws: An Analysis of 500 Condyles Using CT Scans.

Authors:  David N Bernstein; Tochukwu C Ikpeze; Kenneth Foxx; Adan Omar; Addisu Mesfin
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2021-01-21
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.