• Spine · Oct 2008

    Comparative Study

    A biomechanical evaluation of three revision screw strategies for failed lateral mass fixation.

    • Richard A Hostin, Chunhui Wu, Joseph H Perra, David W Polly, Burak Akesen, and Jill M Wroblewski.
    • Twin Cities Spine Center, Minneapolis, MN 55404, USA.
    • Spine. 2008 Oct 15; 33 (22): 2415-21.

    Study DesignThis is a biomechanical study evaluating 3 revision strategies for failed cervical lateral mass screw fixation.ObjectiveOur primary objective was to compare, following a Magerl trajectory screw failure in the subaxial cervical spine, the pullout strength of (1) a revision screw in the same trajectory, (2) a Roy-Camille trajectory, and (3) pedicle screw fixation. We additionally analyzed the contributions of bone mineral density (BMD) and peak insertional torque to pullout strength.Summary Of Background DataBiomechanical studies that have examined revision screw strategies for lateral mass fixation have found either unsatisfactory or highly variable performance.MethodsFresh frozen cervical spinal segments were harvested and BMD testing performed. Bicortical (3.5-mm Vertex) lateral mass screws were placed in a Magerl trajectory in 57 fresh frozen human subaxial cervical vertebrae. All screws were then stripped and revision screws (4.0-mm Vertex) placed using either the same screw path or conversion to a Roy-Camille trajectory. In line pullout testing was performed on each of the revision screws (57 in Magerl revision group, 55 in Roy-Camille). Specimens that had not fractured during testing then had cervical pedicle screws (3.5-mm Vertex) placed and in-line pullout testing repeated (64 pedicles were instrumented) The pullout failure results of the Magerl revision, Roy-Camille revision, and pedicle screw revision groups were compared.ResultsNo significant difference was noted in insertional torque (0.28-Nm Magerl, 0.35 Nm Roy-Camille, P > 0.05) or pullout (382-N Magerl, 351 N Roy-Camille, P > 0.05) between the Magerl and Roy-Camille revision groups. Pedicle screw revision had greater pullout strength (566 N) when compared with either the Magerl (382 N) or Roy-Camille (351 N) revision groups (P < 0.01) but also had a 20% pedicle wall breech rate by visual inspection. Insertional torque and pullout strength increased with increased BMD and were significantly correlated in all 3 revision groups (P < 0.05). Similarly, increased BMD was associated with increased pullout strength as demonstrated by the significant positive correlation (P < 0.05).ConclusionConversion of a stripped lateral mass screw to an alternate trajectory appears to offer no biomechanical advantage over placement of an increased diameter salvage screw using the same trajectory. Pedicle screw fixation provides superior biomechanical fixation but was associated with a significant breech rate.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.