Abstract
BackgroundCompression-extension injury with unilateral facet joint fracture is one of the most devastating injuries of subaxial cervical spine. However, it is not yet clear which fixation technique represents the optimal choice in surgical management. This study aims to assess the construct stability at the operative level (C4/C5 cervical spine) following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) alone and combined fixation techniques (posterior-anterior fixations).MethodsA previously validated three-dimensional C2-T1 finite element model were modified to simulate surgical procedures via the anterior-only approach (ACDF) and combined cervical approach [(transarticular screw, lateral mass screw, unilateral pedicle screw, bilateral pedicle screw) + ACDF, respectively] for treating compression-extension injury with unilateral facet joint fracture at C4/C5 level. Construct stability (range of rotation, axial compression displacement and anterior shear displacement) at the operative level was comparatively analyzed.ResultsIn comparison with combined fixation techniques, a wider range of motion and a higher maximum von Mises stress was found in single ACDF. There was no obvious difference in range of motion among transarticular screw and other posterior fixations in the presence of anterior fixation. In addition, the screws inserted by transarticular screw technique had high stress concentration at the middle part of the screw but much less than 500 MPa under different conditions. Furthermore, the variability of von Mises stress in the transarticular screw fixation device was significantly lower than ACDF but no obvious difference compared with other posterior fixations.ConclusionsOf the five fixation techniques, ACDF has proven poor stability and high structural stress. Compared with lateral and pedicle screw, transarticular screw technique was not worse biomechanically and less technically demanding to acquire in clinical practice. Therefore, our study suggested that combined fixation technique (transarticular screw + ACDF) would be a reasonable treatment option to acquire an immediate stabilization in the management of compression-extension injury with unilateral facet joint fracture. However, clinical aspects must also be regarded when choosing a reconstruction method for a specific patient.
Highlights
Compression-extension injury with unilateral facet joint fracture is one of the most devastating injuries of subaxial cervical spine
It is agreed that fractures of the lateral mass and articular process were generally accepted as being produced by compressionextension injury (CEI) or hyperextension combined with a rotational injury mechanism according to Allen’s classification [2,3,4]
Compared with the intact model, the Range of motion (ROM) and displacement in other five surgical models were lower in each condition: flexion (73.6, 88.0, 93.6, 93.0, 96.6%), extension (93.1, 93.9, 95.5, 95.2, 96.7%), left lateral bending (95.2, 95.5, 95.8, 96.0, 97.3%), right lateral bending (95.2, 95.8, 96.5, 96.7, 973%), left axial rotation (86.9, 95.1, 95.9, 96.0, 97.4%), right axial rotation (87.7%, 96.4, 96.1, 96.2, 97.5%), axial compression displacement (100, 98.1, 98.1, 98.1, 98.1%), and anterior shear
Summary
Compression-extension injury with unilateral facet joint fracture is one of the most devastating injuries of subaxial cervical spine. Y. Kotani et al [5] have introduced a new classification to clarify the injury pattern as well as the degree of discoligamentous injuries in cervical lateral mass and facet joint fractures. Kotani et al [5] have introduced a new classification to clarify the injury pattern as well as the degree of discoligamentous injuries in cervical lateral mass and facet joint fractures They described the comminution-type fracture was the most severe subtype that consisted of multiple fracture lines in the lateral mass with significant fragmentations, frequently accompanied by significantly higher rates of coronal malalignment. 24% of anterior translation of fractured vertebra was observed and signal changes in intervertebral disc were demonstrated in 76% of caudal segments and 24% of cephalad segments adjacent to fractured vertebra of lateral mass fractures In this case, they proposed that single-level posterior fixation procedure has proven poor fracture reduction and failure in repairing injured disc
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
