Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Apr 15;38(8):635-41. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318279a95e.

Biomechanics of lumbar cortical screw-rod fixation versus pedicle screw-rod fixation with and without interbody support.

Author information

1
Spinal Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery Research, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ 85013, USA.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN:

Seven different combinations of posterior screw fixation, with or without interbody support, were compared in vitro using nondestructive flexibility tests.

OBJECTIVE:

To study the biomechanical behavior of a new cortical screw (CS) fixation construct relative to the traditional pedicle screw (PS) construct.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:

The CS is an alternative to the PS for posterior fixation of the lumbar spine. The CS trajectory is more sagittally and cranially oriented than the PS, being anchored in the pars interarticularis. Like PS fixation, CS fixation uses interconnecting rods fastened with top-locking connectors. Stability after bilateral CS fixation was compared with stability after bilateral PS fixation in the setting of intact disc and with direct lateral interbody fixation (DLIF) or transforaminal lateral interbody fixation (TLIF) support.

METHODS:

Standard nondestructive flexibility tests were performed in cadaveric lumbar specimens, allowing non-paired comparisons of specific conditions from 28 specimens (4 groups of 7) within a larger experiment of multiple hardware configurations. Condition tested and group from which results originated were as follows: (1) intact (all groups); (2) with L3-L4 bilateral PS-rods (group 1); (3) with bilateral CS-rods (group 2); (4) with DLIF (group 3); (5) with DLIF + CS-rods (group 4); (6) with DLIF + PS-rods (group 3); (7) with TLIF + CS-rods (group 2), and (8) with TLIF + PS-rods (group 2). To assess spinal stability, the mean range of motion, lax zone, and stiff zone at L3-L4 were compared during flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation.

RESULTS:

With intact disc, stability was equivalent after PS-rod and CS-rod fixation, except that PS-rod fixation was stiffer during axial rotation. With DLIF support, there was no significant difference in stability between PS-rod and CS-rod fixation. With TLIF support, PS-rod fixation was stiffer than CS-rod fixation during lateral bending.

CONCLUSION:

Bilateral CS-rod fixation provided about the same stability in cadaveric specimens as PS-rod fixation regardless of the presence of interbody, TLIF, or DLIF support.

PMID:
23104197
DOI:
10.1097/BRS.0b013e318279a95e
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wolters Kluwer
Loading ...
Support Center