• J Spinal Disord Tech · May 2007

    Comparative Study

    A comparative biomechanical analysis of spinal instability and instrumentation of the cervicothoracic junction: an in vitro human cadaveric model.

    • Brad G Prybis, Paul J Tortolani, Nianbin Hu, Candace M Zorn, Paul C McAfee, and Bryan W Cunningham.
    • Scoliosis and Spine Center, Towson, MD, USA.
    • J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007 May 1; 20 (3): 233-8.

    ObjectiveStabilization of the cervicothoracic junction is challenging but commonly required in patients with traumatic, neoplastic, congenital, and postlaminectomy conditions. Although extensive research has been performed on stabilization of the cervical spine, there remains a paucity of published data on instrumentation at the cervicothoracic junction. Using 2-column, 3-column, and corpectomy instability models, a biomechanical analysis was performed on the effects of increasing the number of posterior segmental fixation points and/or anterior column reconstruction at the cervicothoracic junction.MethodsMultidirectional flexibility testing was performed utilizing a 6-degree-of-freedom spine simulator and 7 fresh-frozen human cadaveric spines (occiput-T6). After intact spine analysis, each specimen was destabilized and reconstructed as follows: (1) C7/T1 2-column injury with posterior instrumentation; (2) C7/T1 3-column injury with posterior instrumentation; (3) C7/T1 3-column injury with anterior interbody cage/plate and posterior instrumentation; and (4) C7/T1 3-column injury plus C7 corpectomy with anterior cage/plate and posterior instrumentation. All reconstruction groups were tested with posterior instrumentation (screws connected by dual-diameter rods) from C5-T1, C5-T2, and C5-T3.ResultsFor 2-column injuries, there were no statistically significant differences in flexibility (P>0.05), although there was a trend toward reduced flexibility with increasing levels of thoracic fixation. For 3-column injuries, posterior fixation alone resulted in excessive flexibility in flexion/extension even with instrumentation to T3 (P<0.05). With the addition of anterior column instrumentation, there were no observed differences in flexion/extension and lateral bending. For axial rotation, instrumentation to T1 alone demonstrated increased motion relative to the intact spine (P<0.05). The 3-column injury with corpectomy model demonstrated similar flexibility properties to the 3-column injury model.ConclusionsWith 3-column instability posterior segmental fixation alone from C5-T3 was inadequate, and the addition of anterior instrumentation restored flexibility to the intact condition. There was a strong trend toward reduced flexibility with increasing levels of thoracic fixation in all instability models.

      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…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

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