Finite Element Analysis Comparing the Biomechanical Parameters in Multilevel Posterior Cervical Instrumentation Model Involving Lateral Mass Screw versus Transpedicular Screw Fixation at the C7 Vertebra

被引:0
作者
Kulkarni, Arvind Gopalrao [1 ,6 ]
Kumar, Priyambada [2 ]
Shetty, Gautam Manjayya [3 ,4 ]
Roy, Sandipan [5 ]
Manickam, Pechimuthu Susai [5 ]
Dhason, Raja [5 ]
Chadalavada, Aditya Raghavendra Sai Siva [2 ]
Adbalwad, Yogesh Madhavrao [2 ]
机构
[1] Mumbai Spine Scoliosis & Disc Replacement Ctr, Dept Spine Surg, Mumbai, India
[2] Bombay Hosp & Med Res Ctr, Dept Spine Surg, Mumbai, India
[3] Knee & Orthoped Clin, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Mumbai, India
[4] AIMD Res, Dept Clin Res, Mumbai, India
[5] SRM Inst Sci & Technol, Dept Mech Engn, Kattankulathur, India
[6] Mumbai Spine Scoliosis & Disc Replacement Ctr, 203 Lotus House,3A New Marine Lines, Mumbai 400020, India
关键词
Finite element analysis; Intervertebral disc stress; Lateral mass screw fixation; Posterior cervical fixation; Transpedicular screw fixation; QUANTITATIVE ANATOMY; SPINE; PEDICLE; STABILIZATION; INTRALAMINAR; LESIONS; MIDDLE;
D O I
10.31616/asj.2023.0231
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Study design: Basic research. Purpose: This finite element (FE) analysis (FEA) aimed to compare the biomechanical parameters in multilevel posterior cervical fixation with the C7 vertebra instrumented by two techniques: lateral mass screw (LMS) vs. transpedicular screw (TPS). Overview of literature: Very few studies have compared the biomechanics of different multilevel posterior cervical fixation constructs. Methods: Four FE models of multilevel posterior cervical fixation were created and tested by FEA in various permutations and combinations. Generic differences in fixation were determined, and the following parameters were assessed: (1) maximum moment at failure, (2) maximum angulation at failure, (3) maximum stress at failure, (4) point of failure, (5) intervertebral disc stress, and (6) influence of adding a C2 pars screw to the multilevel construct. Results: The maximum moment at failure was higher in the LMS fixation group than in the TPS group. The maximum angulation in flexion allowed by LMS was higher than that by TPS. The maximum strain at failure was higher in the LMS group than in the TPS group. The maximum stress endured before failure was higher in the TPS group than in the LMS group. Intervertebral stress levels at C6-C7 and C7-T1 intervertebral discs were higher in the LMS group than in the TPS group. For both models where C2 fixation was performed, lower von Mises stress was recorded at the C2-C3 intervertebral disc level. Conclusions: Ending a multilevel posterior cervical fixation construct with TPS fixation rather than LMS fixation at the C7 vertebra provides a stiff and more constrained construct system, with higher stress endurance to compressive force. The constraint and durability of the construct can be further enhanced by adding a C2 pars screw in the fixation system
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 36 条
[1]   Factors affecting lateral mass screw placement at C-7 Clinical article [J].
Abdullah, Kalil G. ;
Nowacki, Amy S. ;
Steinmetz, Michael P. ;
Wang, Jeffrey C. ;
Mroz, Thomas E. .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2011, 14 (03) :405-411
[2]   Complications of pedicle screw fixation in reconstructive surgery of the cervical spine [J].
Abumi, K ;
Shono, Y ;
Ito, M ;
Taneichi, H ;
Kotani, Y ;
Kaneda, K .
SPINE, 2000, 25 (08) :962-969
[3]   TRANSPEDICULAR SCREW FIXATION FOR TRAUMATIC LESIONS OF THE MIDDLE AND LOWER CERVICAL-SPINE - DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNIQUES AND PRELIMINARY-REPORT [J].
ABUMI, K ;
ITOH, H ;
TANEICHI, H ;
KANEDA, K .
JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS, 1994, 7 (01) :19-28
[4]   Does Ending a Posterior Construct Proximally at C2 Versus C3 Impact Patient Reported Outcomes in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy Patients up to 24 months After the Surgery? [J].
Algarni, Nizar ;
Dea, Nicolas ;
Evaniew, Nathan ;
McIntosh, Greg ;
Jacobs, Bradley W. ;
Paquet, Jerome ;
Wilson, Jefferson R. ;
Hall, Hamilton ;
Bailey, Christopher S. ;
Weber, Michael H. ;
Nataraj, Andrew ;
Attabib, Najmedden ;
Rampersaud, Y. Raja ;
Cadotte, David W. ;
Stratton, Alexandra ;
Christie, Sean D. ;
Fisher, Charles G. ;
Charest-Morin, Raphaele .
GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2024, 14 (07) :2062-2073
[5]   Finite -Element analysis of a lateral femoro-tibial impact on the total knee arthroplasty [J].
Arab, Ali Zine El-Abidine ;
Merdji, Ali ;
Benaissa, Ali ;
Roy, Sandipan ;
Bouiadjra, Bel-Abbes Bachir ;
Layadi, Khaled ;
Ouddane, Abdelhakim ;
Mukdadi, Osama M. .
COMPUTER METHODS AND PROGRAMS IN BIOMEDICINE, 2020, 192 (192)
[6]   Biomechanical Comparison of Transpedicular Versus Intralaminar C2 Fixation in C2-C6 Subaxial Constructs [J].
Benke, Michael T. ;
O'Brien, Joseph R. ;
Turner, Alexander W. L. ;
Yu, Warren D. .
SPINE, 2011, 36 (01) :E33-E37
[7]   BIOMECHANICAL PERFORMANCE OF A MODIFIED DESIGN OF DYNAMIC CERVICAL IMPLANT COMPARED TO CONVENTIONAL BALL AND SOCKET DESIGN OF AN ARTIFICIAL INTERVERTEBRAL DISC IMPLANT: A FINITE ELEMENT STUDY [J].
Bhattacharya, Shambo ;
Roy, Sandipan ;
Rana, Masud ;
Banerjee, Sreerup ;
Karmakar, Santanu Kumar ;
Biswas, Jayanta Kumar .
JOURNAL OF MECHANICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2019, 19 (04)
[8]   EFFECTS OF CERVICAL DISC REPLACEMENT AND ANTERIOR FUSION FOR DIFFERENT BONE CONDITIONS: A FINITE ELEMENT STUDY [J].
Biswas, Jayanta Kumar ;
Roy, Sandipan ;
Pradhan, Rururaj ;
Rana, Masud ;
Majumdar, Sourav .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR MULTISCALE COMPUTATIONAL ENGINEERING, 2019, 17 (04) :411-427
[9]   Biomechanical analysis of rigid stabilization techniques for three-column injury in the lower cervical spine [J].
Bozkus, H ;
Ames, CP ;
Chamberlain, RH ;
Nottmeier, EW ;
Sonntag, VKH ;
Papadopoulos, SM ;
Crawford, NR .
SPINE, 2005, 30 (08) :915-922
[10]   The axis fixation system for posterior instrumentation of the cervical spine [J].
Cooper, PR .
NEUROSURGERY, 1996, 39 (03) :612-614