Biomechanical comparison of C1-C2 posterior arthrodesis techniques

Panayiotis J. Papagelopoulos, Bradford L. Currier, Yukitaka Hokari, Patricia G. Neale, Chunfeng D Zhao, Lawrence J. Berglund, Dirk R. Larson, Kai N. An

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN. Biomechanical comparison of 5 atlantoaxial posterior arthrodesis techniques. OBJECTIVE. To assess the relative value of different posterior wire constructs when one or two transarticular screws are used. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. A combination of Gallie or Brooks techniques and 2 posterior transarticular screws has been shown to be effective for atlantoaxial arthrodesis. Anatomic constraints may preclude the insertion of a transarticular screw unilaterally or bilaterally. METHODS. Ten adult human cadaveric upper cervical spine specimens were used. The specimens were tested intact, after odontoidectomy and transverse and capsular ligament section and after stabilization with each of the 5 techniques: Brooks-Jenkins cable fixation, Brooks-Jenkins with unilateral transarticular screw, Gallie posterior wire construct with unilateral transarticular screw, Brooks-Jenkins with bilateral screws, and Gallie with bilateral screws. Pure moments were applied in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and torsion within physiologic limits (<1.5 Nm). RESULTS. In flexion-extension and lateral bending, the range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ) increased significantly after the specimens were injured as compared with intact spines (P < 0.001). After stabilization, the ROM and NZ were significantly lower than in injured and intact spines in all motions (P < 0.01) except lateral bending in the intact spine. Among the 5 instrumented techniques, the ROM for the Gallie construct with 1 screw was significantly higher than for the Brooks-Jenkins construct with 1 or 2 screws in flexion-extension (P < 0.05). In axial torsion, the Gallie construct with 1 screw displayed a larger NZ and ROM than any of the other 4 constructs (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS. Gallie or Brooks-Jenkins cable fixation alone may not be adequate for atlantoaxial arthrodesis. If 2 supplemented transarticular screws can beinserted, there is no difference between the Gallie or Brooks techniques. If only a single screw can be inserted, the Brooks-Jenkins technique is recommended rather than a Gallie technique.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalSpine
Volume32
Issue number13
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2007

Fingerprint

Arthrodesis
Articular Range of Motion
Spine
Ligaments

Keywords

  • Arthrodesis
  • Atlas
  • Axis
  • Biomechanical analysis
  • Cervical spine
  • Instrumentation
  • Odontoidectomy
  • Spinal instability

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physiology
  • Clinical Neurology
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Papagelopoulos, P. J., Currier, B. L., Hokari, Y., Neale, P. G., Zhao, C. D., Berglund, L. J., ... An, K. N. (2007). Biomechanical comparison of C1-C2 posterior arthrodesis techniques. Spine, 32(13). https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318060cc65

Biomechanical comparison of C1-C2 posterior arthrodesis techniques. / Papagelopoulos, Panayiotis J.; Currier, Bradford L.; Hokari, Yukitaka; Neale, Patricia G.; Zhao, Chunfeng D; Berglund, Lawrence J.; Larson, Dirk R.; An, Kai N.

In: Spine, Vol. 32, No. 13, 06.2007.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Papagelopoulos, PJ, Currier, BL, Hokari, Y, Neale, PG, Zhao, CD, Berglund, LJ, Larson, DR & An, KN 2007, 'Biomechanical comparison of C1-C2 posterior arthrodesis techniques', Spine, vol. 32, no. 13. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318060cc65
Papagelopoulos PJ, Currier BL, Hokari Y, Neale PG, Zhao CD, Berglund LJ et al. Biomechanical comparison of C1-C2 posterior arthrodesis techniques. Spine. 2007 Jun;32(13). https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318060cc65
Papagelopoulos, Panayiotis J. ; Currier, Bradford L. ; Hokari, Yukitaka ; Neale, Patricia G. ; Zhao, Chunfeng D ; Berglund, Lawrence J. ; Larson, Dirk R. ; An, Kai N. / Biomechanical comparison of C1-C2 posterior arthrodesis techniques. In: Spine. 2007 ; Vol. 32, No. 13.
@article{2931830e56af429ca2dc68f0cf073f00,
title = "Biomechanical comparison of C1-C2 posterior arthrodesis techniques",
abstract = "STUDY DESIGN. Biomechanical comparison of 5 atlantoaxial posterior arthrodesis techniques. OBJECTIVE. To assess the relative value of different posterior wire constructs when one or two transarticular screws are used. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. A combination of Gallie or Brooks techniques and 2 posterior transarticular screws has been shown to be effective for atlantoaxial arthrodesis. Anatomic constraints may preclude the insertion of a transarticular screw unilaterally or bilaterally. METHODS. Ten adult human cadaveric upper cervical spine specimens were used. The specimens were tested intact, after odontoidectomy and transverse and capsular ligament section and after stabilization with each of the 5 techniques: Brooks-Jenkins cable fixation, Brooks-Jenkins with unilateral transarticular screw, Gallie posterior wire construct with unilateral transarticular screw, Brooks-Jenkins with bilateral screws, and Gallie with bilateral screws. Pure moments were applied in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and torsion within physiologic limits (<1.5 Nm). RESULTS. In flexion-extension and lateral bending, the range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ) increased significantly after the specimens were injured as compared with intact spines (P < 0.001). After stabilization, the ROM and NZ were significantly lower than in injured and intact spines in all motions (P < 0.01) except lateral bending in the intact spine. Among the 5 instrumented techniques, the ROM for the Gallie construct with 1 screw was significantly higher than for the Brooks-Jenkins construct with 1 or 2 screws in flexion-extension (P < 0.05). In axial torsion, the Gallie construct with 1 screw displayed a larger NZ and ROM than any of the other 4 constructs (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS. Gallie or Brooks-Jenkins cable fixation alone may not be adequate for atlantoaxial arthrodesis. If 2 supplemented transarticular screws can beinserted, there is no difference between the Gallie or Brooks techniques. If only a single screw can be inserted, the Brooks-Jenkins technique is recommended rather than a Gallie technique.",
keywords = "Arthrodesis, Atlas, Axis, Biomechanical analysis, Cervical spine, Instrumentation, Odontoidectomy, Spinal instability",
author = "Papagelopoulos, {Panayiotis J.} and Currier, {Bradford L.} and Yukitaka Hokari and Neale, {Patricia G.} and Zhao, {Chunfeng D} and Berglund, {Lawrence J.} and Larson, {Dirk R.} and An, {Kai N.}",
year = "2007",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1097/BRS.0b013e318060cc65",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
journal = "Spine",
issn = "0362-2436",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "13",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biomechanical comparison of C1-C2 posterior arthrodesis techniques

AU - Papagelopoulos, Panayiotis J.

AU - Currier, Bradford L.

AU - Hokari, Yukitaka

AU - Neale, Patricia G.

AU - Zhao, Chunfeng D

AU - Berglund, Lawrence J.

AU - Larson, Dirk R.

AU - An, Kai N.

PY - 2007/6

Y1 - 2007/6

N2 - STUDY DESIGN. Biomechanical comparison of 5 atlantoaxial posterior arthrodesis techniques. OBJECTIVE. To assess the relative value of different posterior wire constructs when one or two transarticular screws are used. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. A combination of Gallie or Brooks techniques and 2 posterior transarticular screws has been shown to be effective for atlantoaxial arthrodesis. Anatomic constraints may preclude the insertion of a transarticular screw unilaterally or bilaterally. METHODS. Ten adult human cadaveric upper cervical spine specimens were used. The specimens were tested intact, after odontoidectomy and transverse and capsular ligament section and after stabilization with each of the 5 techniques: Brooks-Jenkins cable fixation, Brooks-Jenkins with unilateral transarticular screw, Gallie posterior wire construct with unilateral transarticular screw, Brooks-Jenkins with bilateral screws, and Gallie with bilateral screws. Pure moments were applied in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and torsion within physiologic limits (<1.5 Nm). RESULTS. In flexion-extension and lateral bending, the range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ) increased significantly after the specimens were injured as compared with intact spines (P < 0.001). After stabilization, the ROM and NZ were significantly lower than in injured and intact spines in all motions (P < 0.01) except lateral bending in the intact spine. Among the 5 instrumented techniques, the ROM for the Gallie construct with 1 screw was significantly higher than for the Brooks-Jenkins construct with 1 or 2 screws in flexion-extension (P < 0.05). In axial torsion, the Gallie construct with 1 screw displayed a larger NZ and ROM than any of the other 4 constructs (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS. Gallie or Brooks-Jenkins cable fixation alone may not be adequate for atlantoaxial arthrodesis. If 2 supplemented transarticular screws can beinserted, there is no difference between the Gallie or Brooks techniques. If only a single screw can be inserted, the Brooks-Jenkins technique is recommended rather than a Gallie technique.

AB - STUDY DESIGN. Biomechanical comparison of 5 atlantoaxial posterior arthrodesis techniques. OBJECTIVE. To assess the relative value of different posterior wire constructs when one or two transarticular screws are used. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. A combination of Gallie or Brooks techniques and 2 posterior transarticular screws has been shown to be effective for atlantoaxial arthrodesis. Anatomic constraints may preclude the insertion of a transarticular screw unilaterally or bilaterally. METHODS. Ten adult human cadaveric upper cervical spine specimens were used. The specimens were tested intact, after odontoidectomy and transverse and capsular ligament section and after stabilization with each of the 5 techniques: Brooks-Jenkins cable fixation, Brooks-Jenkins with unilateral transarticular screw, Gallie posterior wire construct with unilateral transarticular screw, Brooks-Jenkins with bilateral screws, and Gallie with bilateral screws. Pure moments were applied in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and torsion within physiologic limits (<1.5 Nm). RESULTS. In flexion-extension and lateral bending, the range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ) increased significantly after the specimens were injured as compared with intact spines (P < 0.001). After stabilization, the ROM and NZ were significantly lower than in injured and intact spines in all motions (P < 0.01) except lateral bending in the intact spine. Among the 5 instrumented techniques, the ROM for the Gallie construct with 1 screw was significantly higher than for the Brooks-Jenkins construct with 1 or 2 screws in flexion-extension (P < 0.05). In axial torsion, the Gallie construct with 1 screw displayed a larger NZ and ROM than any of the other 4 constructs (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS. Gallie or Brooks-Jenkins cable fixation alone may not be adequate for atlantoaxial arthrodesis. If 2 supplemented transarticular screws can beinserted, there is no difference between the Gallie or Brooks techniques. If only a single screw can be inserted, the Brooks-Jenkins technique is recommended rather than a Gallie technique.

KW - Arthrodesis

KW - Atlas

KW - Axis

KW - Biomechanical analysis

KW - Cervical spine

KW - Instrumentation

KW - Odontoidectomy

KW - Spinal instability

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34249905209&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34249905209&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318060cc65

DO - 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318060cc65

M3 - Article

C2 - 17545899

AN - SCOPUS:34249905209

VL - 32

JO - Spine

JF - Spine

SN - 0362-2436

IS - 13

ER -