• Heiko Koller, Herbert Resch, Mark Tauber, Juliane Zenner, Peter Augat, Rainer Penzkofer, Frank Acosta, Klaus Kolb, Anton Kathrein, and Wolfgang Hitzl.
• Department for Traumatology and Sport Injuries, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Müllner Hauptstrasse 48, 5020 Salzburg, Austria. heiko.koller@t-online.de
• Eur Spine J. 2010 Aug 1; 19 (8): 128812981288-98.

AbstractNonsurgical treatment of Jefferson burst fractures (JBF) confers increased rates of C1-2 malunion with potential for cranial settling and neurologic sequels. Hence, fusion C1-2 was recognized as the superior treatment for displaced JBF, but sacrifies C1-2 motion. Ruf et al. introduced the C1-ring osteosynthesis (C1-RO). First results were favorable, but C1-RO was not without criticism due to the lack of clinical and biomechanical data serving evidence that C1-RO is safe in displaced JBF with proven rupture of the transverse atlantal ligament (TAL). Therefore, our objectives were to perform a biomechanical analysis of C1-RO for the treatment of displaced Jefferson burst fractures (JBF) with incompetency of the TAL. Five specimens C0-2 were subjected to loading with posteroanterior force transmission in an electromechanical testing machine (ETM). With the TAL left intact, loads were applied posteriorly via the C1-RO ramping from 10 to 100 N. Atlantoaxial subluxation was measured radiographically in terms of the anterior antlantodental interval (AADI) with an image intensifier placed surrounding the ETM. Load-displacement data were also recorded by the ETM. After testing the TAL-intact state, the atlas was osteotomized yielding for a JBF, the TAL and left lateral joint capsule were cut and the C1-RO was accomplished. The C1-RO was subjected to cyclic loading, ramping from 20 to 100 N to simulate post-surgery in vivo loading. Afterwards incremental loading (10-100 N) was repeated with subsequent increase in loads until failure occurred. Small differences (1-1.5 mm) existed between the radiographic AADI under incremental loading (10-100 N) with the TAL-intact as compared to the TAL-disrupted state. Significant differences existed for the beginning of loading (10 N, P = 0.02). Under physiological loads, the increase in the AADI within the incremental steps (10-100 N) was not significantly different between TAL-disrupted and TAL-intact state. Analysis of failure load (FL) testing showed no significant differences among the radiologically assessed displacement data (AADI) and that of the ETM (P = 0.5). FL was Ø297.5 +/- 108.5 N (range 158.8-449.0 N). The related displacement assessed by the ETM was Ø5.8 +/- 2.8 mm (range 2.3-7.9). All specimens succeeded a FL >150 N, four of them >250 N and three of them >300 N. In the TAL-disrupted state loads up to 100 N were transferred to C1, but the radiographic AADI did not exceed 5 mm in any specimen. In conclusion, reconstruction after displaced JBF with TAL and one capsule disrupted using a C1-RO involves imparting an axial tensile force to lift C0 into proper alignment to the C1-2 complex. Simultaneous compressive forces on the C1-lateral masses and occipital condyles allow for the recreation of the functional C0-2 ligamentous tension band and height. We demonstrated that under physiological loads, the C1-RO restores sufficient stability at C1-2 preventing significant translation. C1-RO might be a valid alternative for the treatment of displaced JBF in comparison to fusion of C1-2.

36 keywords...

hide…