Jie Tong1,2, Wei Ji1, Ruozhou Zhou1,2, Zhiping Huang1, Sheting Liu2, Qingan Zhu3. 1. Department of Spine Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 N. Guangzhou Ave, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Spine Surgery, The First People's Hospital of Chenzhou, Chenzhou, Hunan, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Spine Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 N. Guangzhou Ave, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. qinganzhu@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Transfacet screws have been used as an alternative posterior fixation in the cervical spine. There is lack of spinal stability of the transfacet screws either as stand-along constructs or combined with anterior plate. This study was designed to evaluate spinal stability of transfacet screws following posterior ligamentous injury and combined with anterior plate, respectively, and compare transfacet screws to lateral mass screw-rod constructs. METHODS: Flexibility tests were conducted on eight cadaveric specimens in an intact and injury, and instrumented with the transfacet screw fixation and lateral mass screw-rod construct at C5-C7 levels either after section of the posterior ligamentous complex or combined with an anterior plate and a mesh cage for C6 corpectomy reconstruction. A pure moment of ±2.0 Nm was applied to the specimen in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Ranges of motion (ROM) were calculated for the C5-C7 segment. RESULTS: ROM with the transfacet screws was 22 % of intact in flexion-extension, 9 % in lateral bending and 11 % in axial rotation, while ROM with the lateral mass screw-rod construct was 9 % in flexion-extension, 8 % in lateral bending and 22 % in axial rotation. The only significant difference between two constructs was seen in flexion-extension (5.8 ± 4.2° vs. 2.4 ± 1.2°, P = 0.002). When combined with an anterior plate and mesh cage, the transfacet screw fixation reduced ROM to 3.0° in flexion-extension, 1.2° in lateral bending, and 1.1° in axial rotation, which was similar to the lateral mass screw-rod construct. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified the transfacet screw fixation, as stand-alone posterior fixation, was equivalent to the lateral mass screw-rod constructs in axial rotation and lateral bending except in flexion-extension. When combined with an anterior plate, the transfacet screw fixation was similar to the lateral mass screw-rod construct in motion constraint. The results suggested the transfacet screw fixation a biomechanically effective way as supplementation of anterior fixation.
PURPOSE: Transfacet screws have been used as an alternative posterior fixation in the cervical spine. There is lack of spinal stability of the transfacet screws either as stand-along constructs or combined with anterior plate. This study was designed to evaluate spinal stability of transfacet screws following posterior ligamentous injury and combined with anterior plate, respectively, and compare transfacet screws to lateral mass screw-rod constructs. METHODS: Flexibility tests were conducted on eight cadaveric specimens in an intact and injury, and instrumented with the transfacet screw fixation and lateral mass screw-rod construct at C5-C7 levels either after section of the posterior ligamentous complex or combined with an anterior plate and a mesh cage for C6 corpectomy reconstruction. A pure moment of ±2.0 Nm was applied to the specimen in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Ranges of motion (ROM) were calculated for the C5-C7 segment. RESULTS: ROM with the transfacet screws was 22 % of intact in flexion-extension, 9 % in lateral bending and 11 % in axial rotation, while ROM with the lateral mass screw-rod construct was 9 % in flexion-extension, 8 % in lateral bending and 22 % in axial rotation. The only significant difference between two constructs was seen in flexion-extension (5.8 ± 4.2° vs. 2.4 ± 1.2°, P = 0.002). When combined with an anterior plate and mesh cage, the transfacet screw fixation reduced ROM to 3.0° in flexion-extension, 1.2° in lateral bending, and 1.1° in axial rotation, which was similar to the lateral mass screw-rod construct. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified the transfacet screw fixation, as stand-alone posterior fixation, was equivalent to the lateral mass screw-rod constructs in axial rotation and lateral bending except in flexion-extension. When combined with an anterior plate, the transfacet screw fixation was similar to the lateral mass screw-rod construct in motion constraint. The results suggested the transfacet screw fixation a biomechanically effective way as supplementation of anterior fixation.
Authors: Marcel F S Dvorak; Floyd Sekeramayi; Qingan Zhu; Joel Hoekema; Charles Fisher; Mike Boyd; Darrell J Goertzen; Thomas R Oxland Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2003-02-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Yu-Po Lee; Claire Robertson; Andrew Mahar; Mark Kuper; Deborah S Lee; Gilad J Regev; Steven R Garfin Journal: J Spinal Disord Tech Date: 2011-06
Authors: Marcel F Dvorak; Tobias Pitzen; Qingan Zhu; Jeff D Gordon; Charles G Fisher; Thomas R Oxland Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-02-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Vincent C Traynelis; Jonathan Sherman; Eric Nottmeier; Vaneet Singh; Kirk McGilvray; Christian M Puttlitz; Patrick Devin Leahy Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2014-02-21