DalCanto Richard A, Lieberman Isador, Inceoglu Serkan, Kayanja Mark, Ferrara Lisa
Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Department of Orthopaedics, OH 44195, USA.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Apr 15;30(8):897-2. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000158937.64577.25.
In vitro biomechanical comparison of transarticular facet screws to lateral mass plates in two level instrumentations of the cervical spine.
Lateral mass plates are costly, and screw placement is difficult. Facet screws have never been tested as an alternative in the cervical spine. This biomechanical study compared cervical transarticular facet screws to lateral mass plates in two-level instrumentations of human cadaveric cervical spines.
Translaminar facet screws have been shown to have similar biomechanical performance to pedicle screw fixation in the lumbar spine, especially in flexion. They have proven to be fast, safe, and effective, with authors reporting 94% to 100% fusion rates in single-level lumbar fusions. However, a biomechanical comparison of transarticular facet screws to lateral mass plates in cervical spine instrumentations has not been reported.
Thirteen human cadaveric cervical motion segments (C2-C4, C5-C7) were tested before and after instrumentation, with either transarticular facet screws or lateral mass plates, in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and torsion. Specimens were subjected to six cycles under a load of 2 Nm.
Both fixation systems significantly reduced range of motion (ROM) and increased stiffness compared with the intact state in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and torsion. There were also no significant differences between the facet screws and plates in any of the four directions. To compare the two systems, ROM of each was analyzed relative to the uninstrumented state. Flexion was 0.26 (or 26% of the intact state) for the transarticular facet screws versus 0.20 for the lateral mass plates (P = 0.34), extension was 0.10 versus 0.07 (P = 0.43), lateral bending was 0.17 versus 0.15 (P = 0.52), and torque was 0.25 versus 0.38 (P = 0.12). Load to failure testing failed to indicate any differences between the two methods of fixation because all the specimens failed elsewhere.
This study proves that transarticular facet screws and lateral mass plates are equivalent in two-level instrumentations of the cervical spine. This is the first biomechanical study to test transarticular facet screws in this context.
在颈椎双节段内固定中,对经关节突螺钉与侧块钢板进行体外生物力学比较。
侧块钢板成本高,且螺钉置入困难。关节突螺钉从未作为颈椎的替代方法进行过测试。这项生物力学研究在人尸体颈椎双节段内固定中,对经关节突螺钉与侧块钢板进行了比较。
经椎板关节突螺钉在腰椎已显示出与椎弓根螺钉固定相似的生物力学性能,尤其是在屈曲时。它们已被证明快速、安全且有效,有作者报告单节段腰椎融合的融合率为94%至100%。然而,尚未有关于颈椎内固定中经关节突螺钉与侧块钢板生物力学比较的报道。
13个尸体颈椎活动节段(C2-C4、C5-C7)在使用经关节突螺钉或侧块钢板进行内固定前后,分别进行屈曲、伸展、侧弯和扭转测试。标本在2 Nm的载荷下进行6个循环的测试。
与完整状态相比,两种固定系统在屈曲、伸展、侧弯和扭转时均显著减小了活动范围(ROM)并增加了刚度。在四个方向中的任何一个方向上,关节突螺钉和钢板之间也没有显著差异。为比较这两种系统,分析了每种系统相对于未固定状态的ROM。经关节突螺钉的屈曲为0.26(或完整状态的26%),侧块钢板为0.20(P = 0.34);伸展为0.10对0.07(P = 0.43);侧弯为0.17对0.15(P = 0.52);扭矩为0.25对0.38(P = 0.12)。失效载荷测试未能显示两种固定方法之间的任何差异,因为所有标本均在其他部位失效。
本研究证明,在颈椎双节段内固定中,经关节突螺钉与侧块钢板等效。这是首次在此背景下测试经关节突螺钉的生物力学研究。