Fixation strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws

Steven J. Cyr, Bradford L. Currier, Jason C. Eck, Andrew Foy, Qingshan Chen, Dirk R. Larson, Michael J Yaszemski, Kai Nan An

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background context: The internal carotid artery and hypoglossal nerve lie over the anterior aspect of the lateral mass of the atlas and are at risk from bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws. This has led to the recommendation for unicortical screws if the neurovascular structures are in close proximity to the proposed exit point. No data are available on strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws. Purpose: To compare the biomechanical pullout strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws in a cadaveric model. Study design: Biomechanical study. Methods: Fifteen cervical spine specimens underwent axial pullout testing. A unicortical C1-C2 transarticular screw was placed on one side with a contralateral bicortical screw. Data were analyzed to reveal any significant differences in strength. Results: Mean pullout strength for the bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws was 1,048.8 (±360.1) N versus 939.2 (±360.6) for unicortical screws (p=.22). There was no significant difference in the pullout strength of unicortical and bicortical screws. Conclusions: In cases with satisfactory bone quality, it appears reasonable to use unicortical screws to avoid the risk of neurovascular injury from penetrating the anterior cortex of C1.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)661-665
Number of pages5
JournalSpine Journal
Volume8
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2008

Fingerprint

Hypoglossal Nerve
Atlases
Internal Carotid Artery
Spine
Bone and Bones
Wounds and Injuries

Keywords

  • Atlantoaxial
  • Biomechanics
  • C1-C2 transarticular screw fixation
  • Cervical spine
  • Fixation
  • Transarticular screw

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Surgery

Cite this

Cyr, S. J., Currier, B. L., Eck, J. C., Foy, A., Chen, Q., Larson, D. R., ... An, K. N. (2008). Fixation strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws. Spine Journal, 8(4), 661-665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.02.008

Fixation strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws. / Cyr, Steven J.; Currier, Bradford L.; Eck, Jason C.; Foy, Andrew; Chen, Qingshan; Larson, Dirk R.; Yaszemski, Michael J; An, Kai Nan.

In: Spine Journal, Vol. 8, No. 4, 07.2008, p. 661-665.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cyr, SJ, Currier, BL, Eck, JC, Foy, A, Chen, Q, Larson, DR, Yaszemski, MJ & An, KN 2008, 'Fixation strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws', Spine Journal, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 661-665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.02.008
Cyr, Steven J. ; Currier, Bradford L. ; Eck, Jason C. ; Foy, Andrew ; Chen, Qingshan ; Larson, Dirk R. ; Yaszemski, Michael J ; An, Kai Nan. / Fixation strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws. In: Spine Journal. 2008 ; Vol. 8, No. 4. pp. 661-665.
@article{26197c2f16ed4bcea8bcdcfc37be79da,
title = "Fixation strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws",
abstract = "Background context: The internal carotid artery and hypoglossal nerve lie over the anterior aspect of the lateral mass of the atlas and are at risk from bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws. This has led to the recommendation for unicortical screws if the neurovascular structures are in close proximity to the proposed exit point. No data are available on strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws. Purpose: To compare the biomechanical pullout strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws in a cadaveric model. Study design: Biomechanical study. Methods: Fifteen cervical spine specimens underwent axial pullout testing. A unicortical C1-C2 transarticular screw was placed on one side with a contralateral bicortical screw. Data were analyzed to reveal any significant differences in strength. Results: Mean pullout strength for the bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws was 1,048.8 (±360.1) N versus 939.2 (±360.6) for unicortical screws (p=.22). There was no significant difference in the pullout strength of unicortical and bicortical screws. Conclusions: In cases with satisfactory bone quality, it appears reasonable to use unicortical screws to avoid the risk of neurovascular injury from penetrating the anterior cortex of C1.",
keywords = "Atlantoaxial, Biomechanics, C1-C2 transarticular screw fixation, Cervical spine, Fixation, Transarticular screw",
author = "Cyr, {Steven J.} and Currier, {Bradford L.} and Eck, {Jason C.} and Andrew Foy and Qingshan Chen and Larson, {Dirk R.} and Yaszemski, {Michael J} and An, {Kai Nan}",
year = "2008",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.spinee.2007.02.008",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "661--665",
journal = "Spine Journal",
issn = "1529-9430",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Fixation strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws

AU - Cyr, Steven J.

AU - Currier, Bradford L.

AU - Eck, Jason C.

AU - Foy, Andrew

AU - Chen, Qingshan

AU - Larson, Dirk R.

AU - Yaszemski, Michael J

AU - An, Kai Nan

PY - 2008/7

Y1 - 2008/7

N2 - Background context: The internal carotid artery and hypoglossal nerve lie over the anterior aspect of the lateral mass of the atlas and are at risk from bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws. This has led to the recommendation for unicortical screws if the neurovascular structures are in close proximity to the proposed exit point. No data are available on strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws. Purpose: To compare the biomechanical pullout strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws in a cadaveric model. Study design: Biomechanical study. Methods: Fifteen cervical spine specimens underwent axial pullout testing. A unicortical C1-C2 transarticular screw was placed on one side with a contralateral bicortical screw. Data were analyzed to reveal any significant differences in strength. Results: Mean pullout strength for the bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws was 1,048.8 (±360.1) N versus 939.2 (±360.6) for unicortical screws (p=.22). There was no significant difference in the pullout strength of unicortical and bicortical screws. Conclusions: In cases with satisfactory bone quality, it appears reasonable to use unicortical screws to avoid the risk of neurovascular injury from penetrating the anterior cortex of C1.

AB - Background context: The internal carotid artery and hypoglossal nerve lie over the anterior aspect of the lateral mass of the atlas and are at risk from bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws. This has led to the recommendation for unicortical screws if the neurovascular structures are in close proximity to the proposed exit point. No data are available on strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws. Purpose: To compare the biomechanical pullout strength of unicortical versus bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws in a cadaveric model. Study design: Biomechanical study. Methods: Fifteen cervical spine specimens underwent axial pullout testing. A unicortical C1-C2 transarticular screw was placed on one side with a contralateral bicortical screw. Data were analyzed to reveal any significant differences in strength. Results: Mean pullout strength for the bicortical C1-C2 transarticular screws was 1,048.8 (±360.1) N versus 939.2 (±360.6) for unicortical screws (p=.22). There was no significant difference in the pullout strength of unicortical and bicortical screws. Conclusions: In cases with satisfactory bone quality, it appears reasonable to use unicortical screws to avoid the risk of neurovascular injury from penetrating the anterior cortex of C1.

KW - Atlantoaxial

KW - Biomechanics

KW - C1-C2 transarticular screw fixation

KW - Cervical spine

KW - Fixation

KW - Transarticular screw

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=45949090876&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=45949090876&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.02.008

DO - 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.02.008

M3 - Article

C2 - 17526435

AN - SCOPUS:45949090876

VL - 8

SP - 661

EP - 665

JO - Spine Journal

JF - Spine Journal

SN - 1529-9430

IS - 4

ER -