Suppr超能文献

寰枢关节 C1-C3 侧块螺钉固定:与标准技术的生物力学比较。

Stabilization of the atlantoaxial joint with C1-C3 lateral mass screw constructs: biomechanical comparison with standard technique.

机构信息

Spinal Biomechanics Laboratory, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.

出版信息

Neurosurgery. 2010 Dec;67(2 Suppl Operative):422-8. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3181fb414c.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Anatomically and biomechanically, the atlantoaxial joint is unique compared with the remainder of the cervical spine.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the in vitro stability provided by 2 C2 screw sparing techniques in a destabilized model of the atlantoaxial joint and compare with the gold standard system.

METHODS

The 3-dimensional intervertebral motion of 7 human cadaveric cervical spine specimens was recorded stereophotogrammetrically while applying nonconstraining, nondestructive pure moments during flexion-extension, left and right axial rotation, and left and right lateral bending. Each specimen was tested in the intact state, followed by destabilization (odontoidectomy) and fixation as follows: (1) C1 and C3 lateral mass screws rods with sublaminar wiring of C2 (LC1-C3 + SW), (2) C1 and C3 lateral mass screws rods with a cross-link in the C1-2 interlaminar space (LC1-C3 + CL), (3) C1 and C3 lateral mass screw rods alone (negative control), and (4) C1 lateral mass and C2 pedicle screws rods augmented with C1-2 interspinous wire and graft (LC1-PC2, control group).

RESULTS

Compared with the intact spine, each instrumented state significantly stabilized range of motion and lax zone at C1-2 (P < .001, 1-way repeated-measures analysis of variance). LC1-C3 + SW was equivalent to LC1-PC2 during flexion and lateral bending and superior to LC1-C3 + CL during lateral bending, while LC1-C3 + CL was equivalent to LC1-PC2 only during flexion. In all other comparisons, LC1-PC2 was superior to both techniques.

CONCLUSION

From a biomechanical perspective, both C2 screw sparing techniques provided sufficient stability to be regarded as an alternative for C1-2 fixation. However, because normal motion across C2-3 is sacrificed, these constructs should be used in patients with unfavorable anatomy for standard fixations.

摘要

背景

与颈椎其余部分相比,寰枢关节在解剖学和生物力学上具有独特性。

目的

评估在寰枢关节失稳模型中两种保留 C2 螺钉的技术提供的体外稳定性,并与金标准系统进行比较。

方法

通过立体摄影测量法记录 7 个人体颈椎标本的三维椎间运动,同时在屈伸、左右轴向旋转和左右侧屈时施加非约束性、非破坏性纯力矩。每个标本均在完整状态下进行测试,然后进行失稳(齿状突切除术)和固定,具体如下:(1)C1 和 C3 侧块螺钉棒与 C2 椎板下布线(LC1-C3+SW),(2)C1 和 C3 侧块螺钉棒与 C1-2 椎板间交叉链接(LC1-C3+CL),(3)C1 和 C3 侧块螺钉棒单独使用(阴性对照),和(4)C1 侧块和 C2 椎弓根螺钉棒与 C1-2 棘间线和移植物增强(LC1-PC2,对照组)。

结果

与完整脊柱相比,每种仪器固定状态均显著稳定 C1-2 的运动范围和松弛区(P<0.001,1 路重复测量方差分析)。LC1-C3+SW 在屈伸和侧屈时与 LC1-PC2 等效,在侧屈时优于 LC1-C3+CL,而 LC1-C3+CL 仅在屈伸时与 LC1-PC2 等效。在所有其他比较中,LC1-PC2 均优于两种技术。

结论

从生物力学角度来看,两种保留 C2 螺钉的技术均提供了足够的稳定性,可作为 C1-2 固定的替代方法。然而,由于牺牲了 C2-3 之间的正常运动,这些结构应在解剖结构不利于标准固定的患者中使用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验