Cargando…

In vitro biomechanical evaluation of four fixation techniques for distractive–flexion injury stage 3 of the cervical spine

PURPOSE: Anterior plate fixation has been reported to provide satisfactory results in cervical spine distractive flexion (DF) injuries stages 1 and 2, but will result in a substantial failure rate in more unstable stage 3 and above. The aim of this investigation was to determine the biomechanical pr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Henriques, Thomas, Cunningham, Bryan W., Mcafee, Paul C., Olerud, Claes
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Informa Healthcare 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4526875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25742755
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/03009734.2015.1019684
_version_ 1782384484108206080
author Henriques, Thomas
Cunningham, Bryan W.
Mcafee, Paul C.
Olerud, Claes
author_facet Henriques, Thomas
Cunningham, Bryan W.
Mcafee, Paul C.
Olerud, Claes
author_sort Henriques, Thomas
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Anterior plate fixation has been reported to provide satisfactory results in cervical spine distractive flexion (DF) injuries stages 1 and 2, but will result in a substantial failure rate in more unstable stage 3 and above. The aim of this investigation was to determine the biomechanical properties of different fixation techniques in a DF-3 injury model where all structures responsible for the posterior tension band mechanism are torn. METHODS: The multidirectional three-dimensional stiffness of the subaxial cervical spine was measured in eight cadaveric specimens with a simulated DF-3 injury at C5–C6, stabilized with four different fixation techniques: anterior plate alone, anterior plate combined with posterior wire, transarticular facet screws, and a pedicle screw–rod construct, respectively. RESULTS: The anterior plate alone did not improve stability compared to the intact spine condition, thus allowing considerable range of motion around all three cardinal axes (p > 0.05). The anterior plate combined with posterior wire technique improved flexion–extension stiffness (p = 0.023), but not in axial rotation and lateral bending. When the anterior plate was combined with transarticular facet screws or with a pedicle screws–rod instrumentation, the stability improved in flexion–extension, lateral bending, and in axial rotation (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings imply that the use of anterior fixation alone is insufficient for fixation of the highly unstable DF-3 injury. In these situations, the use of anterior fixation combined with a competent posterior tension band reconstruction (e.g. transarticular screws or a posterior pedicle screws–rod device) improves segmental stability.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4526875
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Informa Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45268752015-08-26 In vitro biomechanical evaluation of four fixation techniques for distractive–flexion injury stage 3 of the cervical spine Henriques, Thomas Cunningham, Bryan W. Mcafee, Paul C. Olerud, Claes Ups J Med Sci Original Article PURPOSE: Anterior plate fixation has been reported to provide satisfactory results in cervical spine distractive flexion (DF) injuries stages 1 and 2, but will result in a substantial failure rate in more unstable stage 3 and above. The aim of this investigation was to determine the biomechanical properties of different fixation techniques in a DF-3 injury model where all structures responsible for the posterior tension band mechanism are torn. METHODS: The multidirectional three-dimensional stiffness of the subaxial cervical spine was measured in eight cadaveric specimens with a simulated DF-3 injury at C5–C6, stabilized with four different fixation techniques: anterior plate alone, anterior plate combined with posterior wire, transarticular facet screws, and a pedicle screw–rod construct, respectively. RESULTS: The anterior plate alone did not improve stability compared to the intact spine condition, thus allowing considerable range of motion around all three cardinal axes (p > 0.05). The anterior plate combined with posterior wire technique improved flexion–extension stiffness (p = 0.023), but not in axial rotation and lateral bending. When the anterior plate was combined with transarticular facet screws or with a pedicle screws–rod instrumentation, the stability improved in flexion–extension, lateral bending, and in axial rotation (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings imply that the use of anterior fixation alone is insufficient for fixation of the highly unstable DF-3 injury. In these situations, the use of anterior fixation combined with a competent posterior tension band reconstruction (e.g. transarticular screws or a posterior pedicle screws–rod device) improves segmental stability. Informa Healthcare 2015-08 2015-08-31 /pmc/articles/PMC4526875/ /pubmed/25742755 http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/03009734.2015.1019684 Text en © Informa Healthcare http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 License which permits users to download and share the article for non-commercial purposes, so long as the article is reproduced in the whole without changes, and provided the original source is credited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Henriques, Thomas
Cunningham, Bryan W.
Mcafee, Paul C.
Olerud, Claes
In vitro biomechanical evaluation of four fixation techniques for distractive–flexion injury stage 3 of the cervical spine
title In vitro biomechanical evaluation of four fixation techniques for distractive–flexion injury stage 3 of the cervical spine
title_full In vitro biomechanical evaluation of four fixation techniques for distractive–flexion injury stage 3 of the cervical spine
title_fullStr In vitro biomechanical evaluation of four fixation techniques for distractive–flexion injury stage 3 of the cervical spine
title_full_unstemmed In vitro biomechanical evaluation of four fixation techniques for distractive–flexion injury stage 3 of the cervical spine
title_short In vitro biomechanical evaluation of four fixation techniques for distractive–flexion injury stage 3 of the cervical spine
title_sort in vitro biomechanical evaluation of four fixation techniques for distractive–flexion injury stage 3 of the cervical spine
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4526875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25742755
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/03009734.2015.1019684
work_keys_str_mv AT henriquesthomas invitrobiomechanicalevaluationoffourfixationtechniquesfordistractiveflexioninjurystage3ofthecervicalspine
AT cunninghambryanw invitrobiomechanicalevaluationoffourfixationtechniquesfordistractiveflexioninjurystage3ofthecervicalspine
AT mcafeepaulc invitrobiomechanicalevaluationoffourfixationtechniquesfordistractiveflexioninjurystage3ofthecervicalspine
AT olerudclaes invitrobiomechanicalevaluationoffourfixationtechniquesfordistractiveflexioninjurystage3ofthecervicalspine