Biomechanical evaluation of an atlantoaxial lateral mass fusion cage with C1-C2 pedicle fixation.

STUDY DESIGN

A biomechanical testing protocol was used to evaluate atlantoaxial fixation techniques in a human cadaveric model.

OBJECTIVE

To compare in vitro biomechanics of atlantoaxial lateral mass fusion cage combined with C1-C2 pedicle screw technique with those of C1-C2 pedicle screw technique alone and C1-C2 transarticular screws combined with Gallie wires.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

An atlantoaxial lateral mass fusion cage was designed, knowing that the cage, when rigidly combined with C1-C2 pedicle screws, could offer other fusion spots for atlantoaxial stabilization in cases when the posterior arch of the atlas is absent or removed for decompression and a Gallie fixation is impossible. No comparative in vitro biomechanical test has been conducted previously to evaluate the feasibility of this method.

METHODS

Anatomic measurements of the atlantoaxial lateral masses were taken using computed tomography in normal human subjects. Six fresh-frozen human cadaveric cervical spines (C0-C4) were used in the biomechanical study. Specimens were tested in their intact condition, after destabilization via transverse-alar-apical ligament disruption, and after implantation of 3 fixation constructs: (1) transarticular screws combined with Gallie wires, (2) C1-C2 pedicle screws, and (3) atlantoaxial lateral mass fusion cage combined with C1-C2 pedicle screws. Pure moment loading up to 1.5 Nm in flexion/extension, right-left lateral bending, and right-left axial rotation was applied to the occiput, and relative intervertebral rotations were determined using stereophotogrammetry. Range of motion for the intact, destabilized, and 3 fixation scenarios were determined.

RESULTS

The anatomic data indicated that feasible cage design were in 3 sizes: 11/8, 12/9, and 13/10 mm for length/width, and 3.5, 4, and 4.5 mm for height. The biomechanical data indicated that transverse-alar-apical ligament disruption significantly increased C1-C2 motion for all directions. All the 3 fixation techniques significantly reduced motion compared with the intact and destabilized cases. There were no statistically significant differences among the 3 fixation techniques.

CONCLUSION

The biomechanical study indicated that, contrary to expectation, addition of a cage did not increase the stability compared with C1-C2 pedicle screw alone. However, the C1 + C2 + Cage technique may be a viable alternative for atlantoaxial stabilization when the posterior arch of the atlas is absent or removed for decompression and a Gallie fixation is impossible.