Sebastian Hartmann1, Claudius Thomé2, Alexander Keiler3, Helga Fritsch4, Aldemar Andres Hegewald5, Werner Schmölz3. 1. Department of Neurosurgery/Spinal Research, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria. sebastian.hartmann@i-med.ac.at. 2. Department of Neurosurgery/Spinal Research, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria. 3. Department of Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. 4. Department of Anatomy, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, Mannheim Campus, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical investigation. PURPOSE: This study describes ex vivo evaluation of the range of motion (ROM) to characterize the stability and need for additional dorsal fixation after cervical single-level, two-level or multilevel corpectomy (CE) to elucidate biomechanical differences between anterior-only and supplemental dorsal instrumentation. METHODS: Twelve human cervical cadaveric spines were loaded in a spine tester with pure moments of 1.5 Nm in lateral bending (LB), flexion/extension (FE), and axial rotation (AR), followed by two cyclic loading periods for three-level corpectomies. After each cyclic loading session, flexibility tests were performed for anterior-only instrumentation (group_1, six specimens) and circumferential instrumentation (group_2, six specimens). RESULTS: The flexibility tests for all circumferential instrumentations showed a significant decrease in ROM in comparison with the intact state and anterior-only instrumentations. In comparison with the intact state, supplemental dorsal instrumentation after three-level CE reduced the ROM to 12% (±10%), 9% (±12%), and 22% (±18%) in LB, FE, and AR, respectively. The anterior-only construct outperformed the intact state only in FE, with a significant ROM reduction to 57% (±35 %), 60% (±27%), and 62% (±35%) for one-, two- and three-level CE, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The supplemental dorsal instrumentation provided significantly more stability than the anterior-only instrumentation regardless of the number of levels resected and the direction of motion. After cyclic loading, the absolute differences in stability between the two instrumentations remained significant while both instrumentations showed a comparable increase of ROM after cyclic loading. The large difference in the absolute ROM of anterior-only compared to circumferential instrumentations supports a dorsal support in case of three-level approaches.
STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical investigation. PURPOSE: This study describes ex vivo evaluation of the range of motion (ROM) to characterize the stability and need for additional dorsal fixation after cervical single-level, two-level or multilevel corpectomy (CE) to elucidate biomechanical differences between anterior-only and supplemental dorsal instrumentation. METHODS: Twelve human cervical cadaveric spines were loaded in a spine tester with pure moments of 1.5 Nm in lateral bending (LB), flexion/extension (FE), and axial rotation (AR), followed by two cyclic loading periods for three-level corpectomies. After each cyclic loading session, flexibility tests were performed for anterior-only instrumentation (group_1, six specimens) and circumferential instrumentation (group_2, six specimens). RESULTS: The flexibility tests for all circumferential instrumentations showed a significant decrease in ROM in comparison with the intact state and anterior-only instrumentations. In comparison with the intact state, supplemental dorsal instrumentation after three-level CE reduced the ROM to 12% (±10%), 9% (±12%), and 22% (±18%) in LB, FE, and AR, respectively. The anterior-only construct outperformed the intact state only in FE, with a significant ROM reduction to 57% (±35 %), 60% (±27%), and 62% (±35%) for one-, two- and three-level CE, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The supplemental dorsal instrumentation provided significantly more stability than the anterior-only instrumentation regardless of the number of levels resected and the direction of motion. After cyclic loading, the absolute differences in stability between the two instrumentations remained significant while both instrumentations showed a comparable increase of ROM after cyclic loading. The large difference in the absolute ROM of anterior-only compared to circumferential instrumentations supports a dorsal support in case of three-level approaches.
Authors: Randall W Porter; Neil R Crawford; Robert H Chamberlain; Sung Chan Park; Paul W Detwiler; Paul J Apostolides; Volker K H Sonntag Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Heiko Koller; Rene Schmidt; Michael Mayer; Wolfgang Hitzl; Juliane Zenner; Stefan Midderhoff; Stefan Middendorf; Nicolaus Graf; Nicolaus Gräf; H Resch; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Hans-Joachim Willke Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2010-06-30 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Rudolf Andreas Kristof; Thomas Kiefer; Marcus Thudium; Florian Ringel; Michael Stoffel; Attlila Kovacs; Christian-Andreas Mueller Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2009-08-07 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Sebastian Hartmann; P Kavakebi; C Wipplinger; A Tschugg; P P Girod; S Lener; C Thomé Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Christoph Wipplinger; Sara Lener; Christoph Orban; Tamara M Wipplinger; Anto Abramovic; Anna Lang; Sebastian Hartmann; Claudius Thomé Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2022-06-11 Impact factor: 2.816