Klekamp J W, Ugbo J L, Heller J G, Hutton W C
The Emory Spine Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia 30345, USA.
J Spinal Disord. 2000 Dec;13(6):515-8. doi: 10.1097/00002517-200012000-00009.
The authors directly the compared biomechanical pullout strength of screws placed in the cervical lateral masses to that of screws placed across the facet joints. Posterior cervical fixation with lateral mass plates is an accepted adjunctive technique for cervical spine fusions. Altered anatomy resulting from congenital malformation, tumor, trauma, infection, or failed lateral mass fixation may limit traditional screw placement options. Transfacet screw placement, which has been studied extensively in the lumbar spine, may offer an alternative when posterior cervical fusion is required. Ten fresh human cadaveric cervical spines (postmortem age range, 69 to 91 years) were harvested. On one side, transfacet screws were placed at the C3-4, C5-6, and C7-T1 levels. On the other side, lateral mass screws were placed at the C3, C5, and C7 levels. The screw insertion technique at each level was randomized for right or left. After screw placement, each set of vertebral bodies were dissected and mounted in a custom jig for axial pullout testing using a servohydraulic testing machine. The load-displacement curves were obtained for each screw pullout. The mean pullout strength for the screws placed across the facets was 467 N (range, 192 to 1,176 N). This compares with 360 N (range, 194 to 750 N) for the lateral mass screws (p = 0.008). At each level, transfacet screws exhibited greater pullout resistance compared with the lateral mass placement, but the difference was most pronounced at the C7-T1 level (lateral mass = 373 N, transfacet = 539 N, p = 0.042). Cervical transfacet screw placement provides pullout resistance that is comparable to, if not greater than, lateral mass placement. This type of placement, although technically difficult, may be an alternative to lateral mass screws in cases with unusual anatomy, stripped screws, or when additional intermediate points of fixation are desired.
作者直接比较了置于颈椎侧块的螺钉与穿过小关节的螺钉的生物力学拔出强度。颈椎侧块钢板后路固定是颈椎融合术公认的辅助技术。由先天性畸形、肿瘤、创伤、感染或侧块固定失败导致的解剖结构改变可能会限制传统螺钉置入选择。经小关节螺钉置入在腰椎已得到广泛研究,当需要颈椎后路融合时可能提供一种替代方法。获取了10具新鲜人类尸体颈椎(尸检年龄范围为69至91岁)。在一侧,于C3 - 4、C5 - 6和C7 - T1节段置入经小关节螺钉。在另一侧,于C3、C5和C7节段置入侧块螺钉。每个节段的螺钉置入技术随机分为右侧或左侧。螺钉置入后,将每组椎体解剖并安装在定制夹具中,使用伺服液压试验机进行轴向拔出试验。获得每个螺钉拔出的载荷 - 位移曲线。穿过小关节置入的螺钉平均拔出强度为467 N(范围为192至1176 N)。相比之下,侧块螺钉的平均拔出强度为360 N(范围为194至750 N)(p = 0.008)。在每个节段,与侧块置入相比,经小关节螺钉表现出更大的拔出阻力,但在C7 - T1节段差异最为明显(侧块 = 373 N,经小关节 = 539 N,p = 0.042)。颈椎经小关节螺钉置入提供的拔出阻力即便不大于侧块置入,也与之相当。这种置入方式虽然技术难度较大,但在解剖结构异常、螺钉松动或需要额外中间固定点的情况下,可能是侧块螺钉的一种替代方法。