C1 pedicle screws versus C1 lateral mass screws: comparisons of pullout strengths and biomechanical stabilities
- PMID: 19214096
- DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318193a21b
C1 pedicle screws versus C1 lateral mass screws: comparisons of pullout strengths and biomechanical stabilities
Abstract
Study design: In vitro biomechanical study.
Objective: To compare the pullout strengths and the biomechanical stabilities afforded by C1 lateral mass screws and C1 pedicle screws using bicortical and unicortical fixation techniques.
Summary of background data: Posterior screw fixation techniques in the atlas including C1 lateral mass screw and C1 pedicle screw. The shortcomings of C1 lateral mass screw technique and potential risks of bicortical fixation method were recently described; C1 pedicle screw technique with unicortical fixation might overcome these anatomic and clinical drawbacks. However, it is unknown whether the biomechanical characteristics of unicortical C1 pedicle screw are comparable with that of bicortical C1 lateral mass screw. METHODS.: Bicortical or unicortical C1 pedicle screws and C1 lateral mass screws were inserted into 12 adult fresh human C1 specimens. Pullout strength was evaluated using a material testing machine. The construct's stability of bicortical C1 lateral mass screws or unicortical C1 pedicle screws incorporating unicortical C2 pedicle screws was compared with bilateral transarticular screws using another 6 fresh cervical cadaver spines. Pullout strength and biomechanical stability differences were compared statistically.
Results: Bicortical C1 pedicle screws provided the biggest pullout strength (1757.0 +/- 318.7 N) of all 4 methods, whereas unicortical C1 lateral mass screws provided the weakest(794.5 +/- 314.8 N). However, there were no statistically significant differences between bicortical C1 lateral mass screws (1243.8 +/- 350.0 N) and unicortical C1 pedicle screws (1192.5 +/- 172.6 N). Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference of biomechanical construct stability between unicortical C1 pedicle screw-rod constructs and bicortical C1 lateral mass screw-rod constructs.
Conclusion: C1 pedicle screws are stiffer than C1 lateral mass screws. Unicortical C1 pedicle screw provided the same pullout resistance and three-dimensional stability as bicortical C1 lateral mass fixation. Although lateral mass screw placement into C1 requires bicortical purchase, pedicle screw insertion into the atlas only requires unicortical fixation.
Similar articles
-
Biomechanical comparison of unicortical versus bicortical C1 lateral mass screw fixation.J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007 Oct;20(7):505-8. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318031af8b. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007. PMID: 17912127
-
Biomechanical comparison of the pullout strengths of C1 lateral mass screws and C1 posterior arch screws.Spine J. 2013 Dec;13(12):1892-6. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.06.015. Epub 2013 Aug 20. Spine J. 2013. PMID: 23972626
-
Comparison of fatigue strength of C2 pedicle screws, C2 pars screws, and a hybrid construct in C1-C2 fixation.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 Jan 1;39(1):E12-9. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000063. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014. PMID: 24108297
-
Biomechanical analysis of screw constructs for atlantoaxial fixation in cadavers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Neurosurg Spine. 2015 Feb;22(2):151-61. doi: 10.3171/2014.10.SPINE13805. Epub 2014 Dec 5. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015. PMID: 25478824
-
Impact of Starting Point and Bicortical Purchase of C1 Lateral Mass Screws on Atlantoaxial Fusion: Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature.J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015 Aug;28(7):242-53. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31828ffc97. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015. PMID: 23563339 Review.
Cited by
-
Surgical technique of 3D computer-assisted navigated posterior fixation of the upper cervical spine: illustration of three cases.J Spine Surg. 2024 Sep 23;10(3):521-539. doi: 10.21037/jss-24-26. Epub 2024 Jul 4. J Spine Surg. 2024. PMID: 39399079 Free PMC article.
-
Is the 4 mm height of the vertebral artery groove really a limitation of C1 pedicle screw insertion?Eur Spine J. 2014 May;23(5):1109-14. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3217-y. Epub 2014 Feb 9. Eur Spine J. 2014. PMID: 24509775
-
Motion preservation in type II odontoid fractures using temporary pedicle screw fixation: a preliminary study.Eur Spine J. 2015 Apr;24(4):686-93. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3693-0. Epub 2014 Dec 28. Eur Spine J. 2015. PMID: 25543916
-
Posterior spinal fusion using a unilateral C1 posterior arch screw and a C2 laminar screw for atlantoaxial fracture dislocation.SAGE Open Med Case Rep. 2019 May 6;7:2050313X19849276. doi: 10.1177/2050313X19849276. eCollection 2019. SAGE Open Med Case Rep. 2019. PMID: 31105959 Free PMC article.
-
Biomechanical advantage of C1 pedicle screws over C1 lateral mass screws: a cadaveric study.Eur Spine J. 2014 Apr;23(4):724-31. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-3143-4. Epub 2013 Dec 31. Eur Spine J. 2014. PMID: 24378628 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous