Kim Sung-Min, Lim T Jesse, Paterno Josemaria, Kim Daniel H
Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California 94305-5327, USA.
J Neurosurg Spine. 2004 Jul;1(1):101-7. doi: 10.3171/spi.2004.1.1.0101.
Facet screw fixation is the lowest profile lumbar stabilization method. In this study the immediate biomechanical stability provided by the two different types of fixation are compared: translaminar facet screw (TLFS) and transfacetopedicular screw (TFPS) placement after anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) using a femoral ring allograft. Both facet screw fixation types were also compared with the gold standard, transpedicular screw and rod (TSR) fixation.
Twenty-four human lumbosacral spines were tested in the following sequence: intact state, after discectomy, after ALIF, and after TLFS, TFPS, or TSR fixation. Intervertebral motions were measured by a video-based motion capture system. The range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ) were compared for each loading to a maximum of 7.5 Nm. The ROMs for stand-alone ALIFs were less than but similar to those of the intact spine, but NZs were slightly increased in all modes. The ROMs for both TLFS and TFPS fixation were significantly decreased from those of the intact spine in all modes and those of the stand-alone ALIF in flexion and extension. The TLFS and TFPS fixations significantly reduced NZs to below that of the intact spine in all modes. Compared with NZs for ALIF, both types of fixation revealed significantly lower values, except for TLFS placement in lateral bending and TFPS fixation in lateral bending and rotation. There were no significant differences between TLFS and TFPS fixation. There were also no significant differences among both TLFS and TFPS and TSR fixations, except that TFPS was inferior to TSR in lateral bending.
Stand-alone ALIF may not provide sufficient stability. Both facet fixations produced significant additional stability and both are comparable to TSR fixation. Although TFPS fixation revealed a slightly inferior result, TFPSs can be placed percutaneously with the assistance of fluoroscopic guidance and it makes the posterior facet fixation minimally invasive. Therefore, the TFPS fixation can be considered as a good alternative to TLFS fixation.
小关节螺钉固定是腰椎稳定性维持方法中创伤最小的。在本研究中,比较了两种不同类型固定方式在前路腰椎椎间融合术(ALIF)后使用同种异体股骨环移植时所提供的即时生物力学稳定性:经椎板小关节螺钉(TLFS)和经小关节椎弓根螺钉(TFPS)置入。两种小关节螺钉固定方式还与金标准的椎弓根螺钉和棒(TSR)固定进行了比较。
对24个腰骶段人体脊柱按以下顺序进行测试:完整状态、椎间盘切除术后、ALIF术后以及TLFS、TFPS或TSR固定术后。通过基于视频的运动捕捉系统测量椎间运动。比较每种加载至最大7.5 Nm时的运动范围(ROM)和中性区(NZ)。单独ALIF的ROM小于但类似于完整脊柱的ROM,但在所有模式下NZ均略有增加。TLFS和TFPS固定的ROM在所有模式下均显著低于完整脊柱,在屈伸时也低于单独ALIF的ROM。TLFS和TFPS固定在所有模式下均显著将NZ降低至低于完整脊柱的水平。与ALIF的NZ相比,两种固定方式的值均显著更低,但TLFS在侧方弯曲时以及TFPS在侧方弯曲和旋转时除外。TLFS和TFPS固定之间无显著差异。TLFS和TFPS与TSR固定之间也无显著差异,但TFPS在侧方弯曲时不如TSR。
单独的ALIF可能无法提供足够的稳定性。两种小关节固定均产生了显著的额外稳定性,且两者均与TSR固定相当。虽然TFPS固定的结果略差,但TFPS可在透视引导下经皮置入,这使得后路小关节固定微创化。因此,TFPS固定可被视为TLFS固定的良好替代方案。