Cargando…
Biomechanical evaluation of DTRAX(®) posterior cervical cage stabilization with and without lateral mass fixation
INTRODUCTION: Lateral mass screw (LMS) fixation with plates or rods is the current standard procedure for posterior cervical fusion. Recently, implants placed between the facet joints have become available as an alternative to LMS or transfacet screws for patients with cervical spondylotic radiculop...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5003555/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27601934 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S111031 |
_version_ | 1782450669050920960 |
---|---|
author | Voronov, Leonard I Siemionow, Krzysztof B Havey, Robert M Carandang, Gerard Patwardhan, Avinash G |
author_facet | Voronov, Leonard I Siemionow, Krzysztof B Havey, Robert M Carandang, Gerard Patwardhan, Avinash G |
author_sort | Voronov, Leonard I |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Lateral mass screw (LMS) fixation with plates or rods is the current standard procedure for posterior cervical fusion. Recently, implants placed between the facet joints have become available as an alternative to LMS or transfacet screws for patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical stability of the DTRAX(®) cervical cage for single- and two-level fusion and compare this to the stability achieved with LMS fixation with rods in a two-level construct. METHODS: Six cadaveric cervical spine (C3–C7) specimens were tested in flexion–extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation to ±1.5 Nm moment without preload (0 N) in the following conditions: 1) intact (C3–C7), 2) LMS and rods at C4–C5 and C5–C6, 3) removal of all rods (LMS retained) and placement of bilateral posterior cages at C5–C6, 4) bilateral posterior cages at C4–C5 and C5–C6 (without LMS and rods), and 5) C4–C5 and C5–C6 bilateral posterior cages at C4–C5 and C5–C6 with rods reinserted. RESULTS: Bilateral posterior cervical cages significantly reduced range of motion in all tested directions in both single- and multilevel constructs (P<0.05). Similar stability was achieved with bilateral posterior cages and LMS in a two-level construct: 0.6°±0.3° vs 1.2°±0.4° in flexion–extension (P=0.001), (5.0°±2.6° vs 3.1°±1.3°) in lateral bending (P=0.053), (1.3°±1.0° vs 2.2°±0.9°) in axial rotation (P=0.091) for posterior cages and LMS, respectively. Posterior cages, when placed as an adjunct to LMS, further reduced range of motion in a multilevel construct (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Bilateral posterior cages provide similar cervical segmental stability compared with a LMS and rod construct and may be an alternative surgical option for select patients. Furthermore, supplementation of a lateral mass construct with posterior cages increases cervical spine stability in single- and multilevel conditions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5003555 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Dove Medical Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-50035552016-09-06 Biomechanical evaluation of DTRAX(®) posterior cervical cage stabilization with and without lateral mass fixation Voronov, Leonard I Siemionow, Krzysztof B Havey, Robert M Carandang, Gerard Patwardhan, Avinash G Med Devices (Auckl) Original Research INTRODUCTION: Lateral mass screw (LMS) fixation with plates or rods is the current standard procedure for posterior cervical fusion. Recently, implants placed between the facet joints have become available as an alternative to LMS or transfacet screws for patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical stability of the DTRAX(®) cervical cage for single- and two-level fusion and compare this to the stability achieved with LMS fixation with rods in a two-level construct. METHODS: Six cadaveric cervical spine (C3–C7) specimens were tested in flexion–extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation to ±1.5 Nm moment without preload (0 N) in the following conditions: 1) intact (C3–C7), 2) LMS and rods at C4–C5 and C5–C6, 3) removal of all rods (LMS retained) and placement of bilateral posterior cages at C5–C6, 4) bilateral posterior cages at C4–C5 and C5–C6 (without LMS and rods), and 5) C4–C5 and C5–C6 bilateral posterior cages at C4–C5 and C5–C6 with rods reinserted. RESULTS: Bilateral posterior cervical cages significantly reduced range of motion in all tested directions in both single- and multilevel constructs (P<0.05). Similar stability was achieved with bilateral posterior cages and LMS in a two-level construct: 0.6°±0.3° vs 1.2°±0.4° in flexion–extension (P=0.001), (5.0°±2.6° vs 3.1°±1.3°) in lateral bending (P=0.053), (1.3°±1.0° vs 2.2°±0.9°) in axial rotation (P=0.091) for posterior cages and LMS, respectively. Posterior cages, when placed as an adjunct to LMS, further reduced range of motion in a multilevel construct (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Bilateral posterior cages provide similar cervical segmental stability compared with a LMS and rod construct and may be an alternative surgical option for select patients. Furthermore, supplementation of a lateral mass construct with posterior cages increases cervical spine stability in single- and multilevel conditions. Dove Medical Press 2016-08-23 /pmc/articles/PMC5003555/ /pubmed/27601934 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S111031 Text en © 2016 Voronov et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Voronov, Leonard I Siemionow, Krzysztof B Havey, Robert M Carandang, Gerard Patwardhan, Avinash G Biomechanical evaluation of DTRAX(®) posterior cervical cage stabilization with and without lateral mass fixation |
title | Biomechanical evaluation of DTRAX(®) posterior cervical cage stabilization with and without lateral mass fixation |
title_full | Biomechanical evaluation of DTRAX(®) posterior cervical cage stabilization with and without lateral mass fixation |
title_fullStr | Biomechanical evaluation of DTRAX(®) posterior cervical cage stabilization with and without lateral mass fixation |
title_full_unstemmed | Biomechanical evaluation of DTRAX(®) posterior cervical cage stabilization with and without lateral mass fixation |
title_short | Biomechanical evaluation of DTRAX(®) posterior cervical cage stabilization with and without lateral mass fixation |
title_sort | biomechanical evaluation of dtrax(®) posterior cervical cage stabilization with and without lateral mass fixation |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5003555/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27601934 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S111031 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT voronovleonardi biomechanicalevaluationofdtraxposteriorcervicalcagestabilizationwithandwithoutlateralmassfixation AT siemionowkrzysztofb biomechanicalevaluationofdtraxposteriorcervicalcagestabilizationwithandwithoutlateralmassfixation AT haveyrobertm biomechanicalevaluationofdtraxposteriorcervicalcagestabilizationwithandwithoutlateralmassfixation AT carandanggerard biomechanicalevaluationofdtraxposteriorcervicalcagestabilizationwithandwithoutlateralmassfixation AT patwardhanavinashg biomechanicalevaluationofdtraxposteriorcervicalcagestabilizationwithandwithoutlateralmassfixation |