EVALUATION OF A NOVEL CERVICAL SPINE POSTERIOR FIXATION TECHNIQUE USING C1 ARCH SCREWS: AN IN-VITRO CADAVERIC BIOMECHANICAL STUDY

Abstract

Introduction: The complex anatomy and biomechanics of the atlantoaxial motion segment impose technical challenges in the achievement of safe and successful surgical stabilization and fusion. The coauthors have recently reported successful clinical results using a novel C1-C2 stabilization technique employing C1 multi-axial posterior arch screws (MA-PAS). This study compares biomechanical stability of MA-PAS with two established multi-point fixation techniques (Magerl-Gallie and Harms) using non-destructive and destructive testing.

Methods: 15 human fresh-frozen cadaveric occipital-C5 cervical spines (average age 77.4 [51–95], sourced from ScienceCare, USA) were randomly allocated to 3 equal groups. Screws were passed up through adjacent end vertebrae such that motion was limited to between C0 and C4. Each spinal column was non-destructively tested in flexion/extension (±1.5Nm), lateral bend (±1.5Nm) and axial rotation (±1.5Nm), firstly in their INTACT state and then after Type 2 odontoid fracture destabilization combined with MAGERL-GALLIE (n=5), HARMS (n=5) or MA-PAS (n=5) instrumentation. All 15 reconstructed spines were finally loaded to failure in forward flexion only.

Results: Non-destructive testing: The C1-C2 joint of the INTACT spines all demonstrated high flexibility in flexion/ extension (ave 16.5deg) and axial rotation (ave 52.6 deg) while lateral bending (ave 2.7deg) was less compliant (see Fig.3). After instrumentation all specimens showed significantly reduced ROM in flexion/extension (MAGERL-GALLIE=4.2deg, HARMS=4.4deg, MA-PAS=4.2deg) and axial rotation (MAGERL-GALLIE=4.05deg, HARMS=0.59deg, MA-PAS=3.7deg) while lateral bend ROM of all instrumented specimens was similar or slightly greater than INTACT (HARMS=2.3deg, MAGERL-GALLIE=3.8deg, MA-PAS=5.3deg). There was no significant difference between the instrumented groups in each loading direction.

Destructive testing: MAGERL-GALLIE was the strongest requiring an average of 13.5Nm to cause failure while HARMS was the weakest requiring 7.8Nm of torque. MA-PAS technique averaged 12.2Nm of torque to cause failure.

Conclusions: The MA-PAS technique was shown to have similar ultimate strength in flexion to the MAGERL-GALLIE and HARMS techniques and stability in flexion-extension, axial rotation and lateral bend. The MA-PAS failure load in flexion was greater than the HARMS technique, and nearly as high as the MAGERL-GALLIE. Given the biomechanical stability of the MA-PAS technique, it is proposed that this technique is an alternative to the technically demanding, and possibly more hazardous, conventional multi-point fixation techniques in patients with normal, as well as anomalous, C1/2 segmental anatomy.