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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Voronov, Leonard I, Siemionow, Krzysztof B, Havey, Robert M, Carandang, Gerard, Patwardhan, Avinash G
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