Hostin Richard A, Wu Chunhui, Perra Joseph H, Polly David W, Akesen Burak, Wroblewski Jill M
Twin Cities Spine Center, Minneapolis, MN 55404, USA.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Oct 15;33(22):2415-21. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818916e3.
This is a biomechanical study evaluating 3 revision strategies for failed cervical lateral mass screw fixation.
Our primary objective was to compare, following a Magerl trajectory screw failure in the subaxial cervical spine, the pullout strength of (1) a revision screw in the same trajectory, (2) a Roy-Camille trajectory, and (3) pedicle screw fixation. We additionally analyzed the contributions of bone mineral density (BMD) and peak insertional torque to pullout strength.
Biomechanical studies that have examined revision screw strategies for lateral mass fixation have found either unsatisfactory or highly variable performance.
Fresh frozen cervical spinal segments were harvested and BMD testing performed. Bicortical (3.5-mm Vertex) lateral mass screws were placed in a Magerl trajectory in 57 fresh frozen human subaxial cervical vertebrae. All screws were then stripped and revision screws (4.0-mm Vertex) placed using either the same screw path or conversion to a Roy-Camille trajectory. In line pullout testing was performed on each of the revision screws (57 in Magerl revision group, 55 in Roy-Camille). Specimens that had not fractured during testing then had cervical pedicle screws (3.5-mm Vertex) placed and in-line pullout testing repeated (64 pedicles were instrumented) The pullout failure results of the Magerl revision, Roy-Camille revision, and pedicle screw revision groups were compared.
No significant difference was noted in insertional torque (0.28-Nm Magerl, 0.35 Nm Roy-Camille, P > 0.05) or pullout (382-N Magerl, 351 N Roy-Camille, P > 0.05) between the Magerl and Roy-Camille revision groups. Pedicle screw revision had greater pullout strength (566 N) when compared with either the Magerl (382 N) or Roy-Camille (351 N) revision groups (P < 0.01) but also had a 20% pedicle wall breech rate by visual inspection. Insertional torque and pullout strength increased with increased BMD and were significantly correlated in all 3 revision groups (P < 0.05). Similarly, increased BMD was associated with increased pullout strength as demonstrated by the significant positive correlation (P < 0.05).
Conversion of a stripped lateral mass screw to an alternate trajectory appears to offer no biomechanical advantage over placement of an increased diameter salvage screw using the same trajectory. Pedicle screw fixation provides superior biomechanical fixation but was associated with a significant breech rate.
这是一项生物力学研究,评估颈椎侧块螺钉固定失败后的3种翻修策略。
我们的主要目的是比较下颈椎Magerl入路螺钉失败后,(1)同一入路翻修螺钉、(2)Roy-Camille入路螺钉和(3)椎弓根螺钉固定的拔出强度。我们还分析了骨密度(BMD)和峰值插入扭矩对拔出强度的影响。
研究颈椎侧块固定翻修螺钉策略的生物力学研究发现,其性能要么不尽人意,要么差异很大。
收集新鲜冷冻的颈椎节段并进行骨密度测试。在57个新鲜冷冻的人体下颈椎椎体中,以Magerl入路置入双皮质(3.5-mm Vertex)侧块螺钉。然后将所有螺钉取出,使用相同的螺钉路径或转换为Roy-Camille入路置入翻修螺钉(4.0-mm Vertex)。对每个翻修螺钉进行轴向拔出测试(Magerl翻修组57个,Roy-Camille翻修组55个)。测试过程中未发生骨折的标本,随后置入颈椎椎弓根螺钉(3.5-mm Vertex)并重复轴向拔出测试(共置入64个椎弓根螺钉)。比较Magerl翻修组、Roy-Camille翻修组和椎弓根螺钉翻修组的拔出失败结果。
Magerl翻修组和Roy-Camille翻修组在插入扭矩(Magerl组0.28 N·m,Roy-Camille组0.35 N·m,P>0.05)或拔出力(Magerl组382 N,Roy-Camille组351 N,P>0.05)方面均无显著差异。与Magerl翻修组(382 N)或Roy-Camille翻修组(351 N)相比,椎弓根螺钉翻修的拔出强度更大(566 N)(P<0.01),但肉眼观察发现椎弓根壁穿破率为20%。所有3个翻修组的插入扭矩和拔出强度均随骨密度增加而增加,且显著相关(P<0.05)。同样,骨密度增加与拔出强度增加相关,呈显著正相关(P<0.05)。
将松动的侧块螺钉转换为另一种入路,与使用相同入路置入直径更大的挽救性螺钉相比,似乎没有生物力学优势。椎弓根螺钉固定提供了更好的生物力学固定,但与较高的穿破率相关。