Literature DB >> 28752245

Which salvage fixation technique is best for the failed initial screw fixation at the cervicothoracic junction? A biomechanical comparison study.

Jae Taek Hong1, Takigawa Tomoyuki2, Ashish Jain3, Alejandro A Espinoza Orías4, Nozomu Inoue4, Howard S An4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The pedicle screw construct is the most widely used technique for instrumentation at cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) because of its high biomechanical stability. However, we may need salvage fixation options for it as there might be a situation when pedicle screw is not available or it initially fails in order to obviate the need to instrument an additional motion segment. We aimed to evaluate the ability of using salvage screw fixations at CTJ (C7, T1, T2), when the initial fixation method fails.
METHODS: Fifteen fresh-frozen cadaveric specimens (C7-T2) were tested for pull-out strength (POS, N) and insertion torque (IT, Nm) of three C7 fixation techniques (lateral mass, pedicle and laminar screw) and three upper thoracic spine instrumentation (pedicle screws with straight trajectory, anatomical trajectory pedicle screws and laminar screw). Data are shown as mean ± standard deviation (SD).
RESULTS: C7 pedicle screws generated statistically greater IT and POS than other C7 fixation techniques (P < 0.05). Similar trends were observed with pedicle fixation as a salvage procedure (P < 0.05). Laminar screws yielded significantly higher POS values than lateral mass fixation when applied as a salvage C7 fixation (mean POS: lateral mass screw-299.4 ± 173.8 N, laminar screw-629.3 ± 216.1, P = 0.013). Significant relationship was established between IT and POS for all screws using Pearson correlation coefficient analysis (r = 0.624, P < 0.01). Pedicle screw with different trajectory (anatomical vs straightforward) did not show any significant difference in terms of POS as the initial and salvage fixation of upper thoracic spine. As a salvage fixation technique, there was no significant difference between laminar screw and a pedicle screw with different trajectory (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Laminar screws appear to provide stronger and more reproducible salvage fixation than lateral mass screws for C7 fixation, if pedicle screw should fail. If failure of initial pedicle screw is verified at the upper thoracic spine, both laminar screw and pedicle screw with different trajectory could be an option of salvage fixation. Our results suggest that pedicle screws and laminar screw similarly provide a strong fixation for salvage applications in the cervicothoracic junction.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anatomical trajectory pedicle screws; Biomechanics; Cervicothoracic junction; Insertion torque; Laminar screw; Lateral mass screw; Pedicle screw; Pull-out strength

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28752245     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-017-5239-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  30 in total

1.  The effect of spinal instrumentation on kinematics at the cervicothoracic junction: emphasis on soft-tissue response in an in vitro human cadaveric model.

Authors:  Ryan M Kretzer; Nianbin Hu; Hidemasa Umekoji; Daniel M Sciubba; George I Jallo; Paul C McAfee; P Justin Tortolani; Bryan W Cunningham
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2010-10

2.  Three-dimensional flexibility and stiffness properties of the human thoracic spine.

Authors:  M M Panjabi; R A Brand; A A White
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1976       Impact factor: 2.712

3.  Placement of pedicle screws in the thoracic spine. Part II: An anatomical and radiographic assessment.

Authors:  A R Vaccaro; S J Rizzolo; R A Balderston; T J Allardyce; S R Garfin; C Dolinskas; H S An
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Biomechanical comparison of three different types of C7 fixation techniques.

Authors:  Jae Taek Hong; Takigawa Tomoyuki; Ranjith Udayakumar; Alejandro A Espinoza Orías; Nozomu Inoue; Howard S An
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Spinal disorders at the cervicothoracic junction.

Authors:  H S An; A Vaccaro; J M Cotler; S Lin
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Posterior Cervicothoracic Instrumentation: Testing the Clinical Efficacy of Tapered Rods (Dual-Diameter Rods).

Authors:  Arvind G Kulkarni; Abhilash N Dhruv; Anupreet J Bassi
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2015-12

7.  Placement of pedicle screws in the thoracic spine. Part I: Morphometric analysis of the thoracic vertebrae.

Authors:  A R Vaccaro; S J Rizzolo; T J Allardyce; M Ramsey; J Salvo; R A Balderston; J M Cotler
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Use of the anatomic trajectory for thoracic pedicle screw salvage after failure/violation using the straight-forward technique: a biomechanical analysis.

Authors:  Ronald A Lehman; Timothy R Kuklo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-09-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Effect of screw diameter, insertion technique, and bone cement augmentation of pedicular screw fixation strength.

Authors:  R H Wittenberg; K S Lee; M Shea; A A White; W C Hayes
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Significance of laminar screw fixation in the subaxial cervical spine.

Authors:  Jae Taek Hong; Jae Hoon Sung; Byung Chul Son; Sang Won Lee; Chun Kun Park
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  1 in total

1.  Surgical challenges in posterior cervicothoracic junction instrumentation.

Authors:  Alberto Balestrino; Renato Gondar; Gianpaolo Jannelli; Gianluigi Zona; Enrico Tessitore
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 3.042

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.