Biomechanical comparison of four different atlantoaxial posterior fixation constructs in adults

Dong Hyun Chun, Do Heum Yoon, Keung Nyun Kim, Seong Yi, DongAh Shin, Yoon Ha

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study Design. Finite element analysis. Objective. To compare the biomechanical stability imparted to the C1 and C2 vertebrae by the transarticular (TA), C1 lateral mass (LM)-C2 pedicle (PS), C1LM-C2 pars, and C1LM-C2 translaminar (TL) screw fixation techniques. Summary of Background Data. Cadaveric biomechanical studies of several atlantoaxial posterior fixation techniques have been performed, showing significant heterogeneity in biomechanical properties among the studies. Methods. From computed tomography images, a nonlinear intact three-dimensional C1-2 finite element model was developed and validated. Four finite element models were reconstructed from different C1-2 fixation techniques. The range of motion (ROM) and maximum von Misses stresses for the four screw techniques were compared under flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Results. C1LM-C2PS showed the greatest decrease in ROM with flexion/extension and lateral bending. C1-2TA and C1LM-C2 pars showed less ROM reduction than the other techniques, in flexion/extension. C1LM-C2TL showed the least decrease in ROM during axial rotation. For C1-2TA, the maximum stress was in the C1-2 joint region. In the C1LM-C2PS, the C1 rod head, C2 pars screw, and C2TL screw were stressed at the C2 rod head. The maximal von Mises stress on the C1-2TA at the C1-2 joint site was the highest at flexion/extension, whereas the C1LM-C2PS had the lowest stress on the screw at flexion/extension and lateral bending. The C1LM-C2TL showed the highest stress in axial rotation and lateral bending. Conclusion. In this study, C1LM-C2PS fixation was the most stable technique. If surgeons have to use other fixation methods besides the C2 pedicle screw, they need to be aware that additional fixation or postoperative immobilization may be required to achieve ROM restriction. Careful observation at the maximum stress site on the screw including screw loosening, screw-bone interface disruption or screw fracture will be necessary during follow-up imaging examinations (X-ray and computed tomography scan) after atlantoaxial fixation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)E891-E897
JournalSpine
Volume43
Issue number15
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018 Aug 1

Fingerprint

Articular Range of Motion
Head
Bone Screws
Finite Element Analysis
X Ray Computed Tomography
Immobilization
Spine
Joints
Tomography
Observation

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Chun, Dong Hyun ; Yoon, Do Heum ; Kim, Keung Nyun ; Yi, Seong ; Shin, DongAh ; Ha, Yoon. / Biomechanical comparison of four different atlantoaxial posterior fixation constructs in adults. In: Spine. 2018 ; Vol. 43, No. 15. pp. E891-E897.
@article{20b818ac954f4f7e8ca6897c909631de,
title = "Biomechanical comparison of four different atlantoaxial posterior fixation constructs in adults",
abstract = "Study Design. Finite element analysis. Objective. To compare the biomechanical stability imparted to the C1 and C2 vertebrae by the transarticular (TA), C1 lateral mass (LM)-C2 pedicle (PS), C1LM-C2 pars, and C1LM-C2 translaminar (TL) screw fixation techniques. Summary of Background Data. Cadaveric biomechanical studies of several atlantoaxial posterior fixation techniques have been performed, showing significant heterogeneity in biomechanical properties among the studies. Methods. From computed tomography images, a nonlinear intact three-dimensional C1-2 finite element model was developed and validated. Four finite element models were reconstructed from different C1-2 fixation techniques. The range of motion (ROM) and maximum von Misses stresses for the four screw techniques were compared under flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Results. C1LM-C2PS showed the greatest decrease in ROM with flexion/extension and lateral bending. C1-2TA and C1LM-C2 pars showed less ROM reduction than the other techniques, in flexion/extension. C1LM-C2TL showed the least decrease in ROM during axial rotation. For C1-2TA, the maximum stress was in the C1-2 joint region. In the C1LM-C2PS, the C1 rod head, C2 pars screw, and C2TL screw were stressed at the C2 rod head. The maximal von Mises stress on the C1-2TA at the C1-2 joint site was the highest at flexion/extension, whereas the C1LM-C2PS had the lowest stress on the screw at flexion/extension and lateral bending. The C1LM-C2TL showed the highest stress in axial rotation and lateral bending. Conclusion. In this study, C1LM-C2PS fixation was the most stable technique. If surgeons have to use other fixation methods besides the C2 pedicle screw, they need to be aware that additional fixation or postoperative immobilization may be required to achieve ROM restriction. Careful observation at the maximum stress site on the screw including screw loosening, screw-bone interface disruption or screw fracture will be necessary during follow-up imaging examinations (X-ray and computed tomography scan) after atlantoaxial fixation.",
author = "Chun, {Dong Hyun} and Yoon, {Do Heum} and Kim, {Keung Nyun} and Seong Yi and DongAh Shin and Yoon Ha",
year = "2018",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/BRS.0000000000002584",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
pages = "E891--E897",
journal = "Spine",
issn = "0362-2436",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "15",

}

Biomechanical comparison of four different atlantoaxial posterior fixation constructs in adults. / Chun, Dong Hyun; Yoon, Do Heum; Kim, Keung Nyun; Yi, Seong; Shin, DongAh; Ha, Yoon.

In: Spine, Vol. 43, No. 15, 01.08.2018, p. E891-E897.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biomechanical comparison of four different atlantoaxial posterior fixation constructs in adults

AU - Chun, Dong Hyun

AU - Yoon, Do Heum

AU - Kim, Keung Nyun

AU - Yi, Seong

AU - Shin, DongAh

AU - Ha, Yoon

PY - 2018/8/1

Y1 - 2018/8/1

N2 - Study Design. Finite element analysis. Objective. To compare the biomechanical stability imparted to the C1 and C2 vertebrae by the transarticular (TA), C1 lateral mass (LM)-C2 pedicle (PS), C1LM-C2 pars, and C1LM-C2 translaminar (TL) screw fixation techniques. Summary of Background Data. Cadaveric biomechanical studies of several atlantoaxial posterior fixation techniques have been performed, showing significant heterogeneity in biomechanical properties among the studies. Methods. From computed tomography images, a nonlinear intact three-dimensional C1-2 finite element model was developed and validated. Four finite element models were reconstructed from different C1-2 fixation techniques. The range of motion (ROM) and maximum von Misses stresses for the four screw techniques were compared under flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Results. C1LM-C2PS showed the greatest decrease in ROM with flexion/extension and lateral bending. C1-2TA and C1LM-C2 pars showed less ROM reduction than the other techniques, in flexion/extension. C1LM-C2TL showed the least decrease in ROM during axial rotation. For C1-2TA, the maximum stress was in the C1-2 joint region. In the C1LM-C2PS, the C1 rod head, C2 pars screw, and C2TL screw were stressed at the C2 rod head. The maximal von Mises stress on the C1-2TA at the C1-2 joint site was the highest at flexion/extension, whereas the C1LM-C2PS had the lowest stress on the screw at flexion/extension and lateral bending. The C1LM-C2TL showed the highest stress in axial rotation and lateral bending. Conclusion. In this study, C1LM-C2PS fixation was the most stable technique. If surgeons have to use other fixation methods besides the C2 pedicle screw, they need to be aware that additional fixation or postoperative immobilization may be required to achieve ROM restriction. Careful observation at the maximum stress site on the screw including screw loosening, screw-bone interface disruption or screw fracture will be necessary during follow-up imaging examinations (X-ray and computed tomography scan) after atlantoaxial fixation.

AB - Study Design. Finite element analysis. Objective. To compare the biomechanical stability imparted to the C1 and C2 vertebrae by the transarticular (TA), C1 lateral mass (LM)-C2 pedicle (PS), C1LM-C2 pars, and C1LM-C2 translaminar (TL) screw fixation techniques. Summary of Background Data. Cadaveric biomechanical studies of several atlantoaxial posterior fixation techniques have been performed, showing significant heterogeneity in biomechanical properties among the studies. Methods. From computed tomography images, a nonlinear intact three-dimensional C1-2 finite element model was developed and validated. Four finite element models were reconstructed from different C1-2 fixation techniques. The range of motion (ROM) and maximum von Misses stresses for the four screw techniques were compared under flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Results. C1LM-C2PS showed the greatest decrease in ROM with flexion/extension and lateral bending. C1-2TA and C1LM-C2 pars showed less ROM reduction than the other techniques, in flexion/extension. C1LM-C2TL showed the least decrease in ROM during axial rotation. For C1-2TA, the maximum stress was in the C1-2 joint region. In the C1LM-C2PS, the C1 rod head, C2 pars screw, and C2TL screw were stressed at the C2 rod head. The maximal von Mises stress on the C1-2TA at the C1-2 joint site was the highest at flexion/extension, whereas the C1LM-C2PS had the lowest stress on the screw at flexion/extension and lateral bending. The C1LM-C2TL showed the highest stress in axial rotation and lateral bending. Conclusion. In this study, C1LM-C2PS fixation was the most stable technique. If surgeons have to use other fixation methods besides the C2 pedicle screw, they need to be aware that additional fixation or postoperative immobilization may be required to achieve ROM restriction. Careful observation at the maximum stress site on the screw including screw loosening, screw-bone interface disruption or screw fracture will be necessary during follow-up imaging examinations (X-ray and computed tomography scan) after atlantoaxial fixation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050107579&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85050107579&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002584

DO - 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002584

M3 - Article

VL - 43

SP - E891-E897

JO - Spine

JF - Spine

SN - 0362-2436

IS - 15

ER -