This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the exams for this article:
 Spine Test 3: Perioperative Considerations/Diagnostic Modalities/Surgical R...
CME 1: January, February, March 2004
Right arrow [Supplementary Material]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Puttlitz, C. M.
Right arrow Articles by Lotz, J. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Puttlitz, C. M.
Right arrow Articles by Lotz, J. C.
Related Collections
Right arrow Spine
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American) 86:561-568 (2004)
© 2004 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.

Stability Analysis of Craniovertebral Junction Fixation Techniques

Christian M. Puttlitz, PhD1, Robert P. Melcher, MD2, Frank S. Kleinstueck, MD1, Juergen Harms, MD2, David S. Bradford, MD1 and Jeffrey C. Lotz, PhD1

1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California at San Francisco, 1001 Potrero Avenue, Room 3A36, San Francisco, CA 94110. E-mail address for C.M. Puttlitz: puttlit{at}itsa.ucsf.edu
2 Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Center for Spinal Surgery, Klinikum Karlsbad-Langensteinbach Guttmannstrassel, 76307 Karlsbad-Langensteinbach, Germany

Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California

In support of their research or preparation of this manuscript, one or more of the authors received grants or outside funding from DePuy AcroMed, Inc. None of the authors received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

Background: Craniovertebral arthrodesis in the upper cervical spine is challenging because of the high degree of mobility afforded by this region. A novel method for achieving atlantoaxial fixation with use of polyaxial screws inserted bilaterally into the lateral masses of C1 and transpedicularly into C2 with longitudinal rod connection has recently been introduced. The question remains as to whether this technique provides adequate stability when extended cephalad to include the occiput. The purpose of this study was to determine the primary stability afforded by this novel construct and compare its stability with the current standard of bilateral longitudinal plates combined with C1-C2 transarticular screws.

Methods: We used ten fresh-frozen human cadaveric cervical spines (C0-C4). Pure moment loads were applied to the occiput, and C4 was constrained during the testing protocol. We evaluated four conditions: (1) intact, (2) destabilized by means of complete odontoidectomy, (3) stabilization with longitudinal plates with C1-C2 transarticular screw fixation, and (4) stabilization with a posterior rod system with C1 lateral mass screws and C2 pedicle screws. Rigid-body three-dimensional rotations were detected by stereophotogrammetry by means of a three-camera system with use of marker triads. The range of motion data (C0-C2) for each fixation scenario was calculated, and a statistical analysis was performed.

Results: Destabilization of the specimen significantly increased C0-C2 motion in both flexion-extension and lateral bending (p < 0.05). Both fixation constructs significantly reduced motion in the destabilized spine by over 90% for all motions tested (p < 0.05). No significant differences were detected between the two constructs in any of the three rotational planes.

Conclusions: Both hardware systems provide equivalent construct stability in the immediate postoperative period when it is critical for the eventual success of a craniovertebral arthrodesis. On the basis of this work, we believe that the decision to use either construct should be determined by clinical rather than biomechanical concerns.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


Letters to the Editor:

Read all Letters to the Editor

Cranio-vertebral Fixation Techniques
Atul Goel, et al.
JBJS Online, 26 Apr 2004 [Full text]