Neurobionplus
Home About Journal AHEAD OF PRINT Current Issue Back Issues Instructions Submission Search Subscribe Blog    
Login 

Users Online: 320 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
 


 
 Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 48  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 550-554
Biomechanical comparison of pedicle screws versus spinous process screws in C2 vertebra A cadaveric study


1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ningbo 6th Hospital, 315040, Ningbo, ZheJiang, China
2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication10-Nov-2014
 

   Abstract 

Background: Biomechanical studies have shown C2 pedicle screw to be the most robust in insertional torque and pullout strength. However, C2 pedicle screw placement is still technically challenging. Smaller C2 pedicles or medial localization of the vertebral artery may preclude safe C2 pedicle screw placement in some patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the pullout strength of spinous process screws with pedicle screws in the C2.
Materials and Methods: Eight fresh human cadaveric cervical spine specimens (C2) were harvested and subsequently frozen to -20°C. After being thawed to room temperature, each specimen was debrided of remaining soft tissue and labeled. A customs jig as used to clamp each specimen for screw insertion firmly. Screws were inserted into the vertebral body pairs on each side using one of two methods. The pedicle screws were inserted in usual manner as in previous biomechanical studies. The starting point for spinous process screw insertion was located at the junction of the lamina and the spinous process and the direction of the screw was about 0° caudally in the sagittal plane and about 0° medially in the axial plane. Each vertebrae was held in a customs jig, which was attached to material testing machine (Material Testing System Inc., Changchun, China). A coupling device that fit around the head of the screw was used to pull out each screw at a loading rate of 2 mm/min. The uniaxial load to failure was recorded in Newton'st dependent test (for paired samples) was used to test for significance.
Results: The mean load to failure was 387 N for the special protection scheme and 465 N for the protection scheme without significant difference (t = −0.862, P = 0.403). In all but three instances (38%), the spinous process pullout values exceeded the values for the pedicle screws. The working distances for the spinous process screws was little shorter than pedicle screws in each C2 specimen.
Conclusion: Spinous process screws provide comparable pullout strength to pedicle screws of the C2. Spinous process screws may provide an alternative to pedicle screws fixation, especially with unusual anatomy or stripped screws.

Keywords: C2 vertebrae, screw fixation, spinous process screws, pedicle screws
MeSH terms: Spine, cervical vertebrae, cadaver, bone screws

How to cite this article:
Liu Gy, Mao L, Xu Rm, Ma Wh. Biomechanical comparison of pedicle screws versus spinous process screws in C2 vertebra A cadaveric study. Indian J Orthop 2014;48:550-4

How to cite this URL:
Liu Gy, Mao L, Xu Rm, Ma Wh. Biomechanical comparison of pedicle screws versus spinous process screws in C2 vertebra A cadaveric study. Indian J Orthop [serial online] 2014 [cited 2020 Feb 19];48:550-4. Available from: http://www.ijoonline.com/text.asp?2014/48/6/550/144212

   Introduction Top


Currently, several screw fixation techniques have been described for C2 fixation [1],[2],[3],[4],[5] These techniques include transarticular screw, pedicle screw and translaminar screw technique. Both transarticular screws and pedicle screws have been demonstrated to be effective method for C1-C2 stabilization in most patients. However, these techniques are not applicable in all patients and puts the vertebral artery (VA) to risk. Several authors [5],[6] have reported up to 20% incidence of vertebral anomalies that would not allow safe placement of these screws. Alternatively, the C2 intralaminar screw technique may be a safe choice to avoid injury to the VA. [7] However, the obvious drawback to the C2 intralaminar screw technique is the spinal cord injury due to breaking of the inner cortex of the lamina. Further, there could be marked variation in C2 laminar thickness.

Appropriate C2 fixation method for a patient who has thin laminas and VA anomalies together was controversial. Nagata et al., [8] reported a case of C2-T1 fixation by using a C2 spinous process screw, inserted horizontally through the base of the spinous process, as a fixation anchor. The special patient had anatomical limitations for screw insertion. Transarticular screw or C2 pedicle screw were not acceptable on the right side because of high-riding VA and translaminar screws trajectories could not be allowed because of thin laminas. After laminectomy posterior fixation for C2 was successfully used spinous process screw on the right side and pedicle screw on the left side. The spinous process screws technique was thought to be advantageous because of the large size of the C2 spinous process and the ability to directly visualize all relevant structures, potentially decreasing the need for intraoperative fluoroscopy or image guidance [8] However, until date, no biomechanical studies have addressed the spinous process screw in the C2. The purpose of this study was to compare the pullout strength of spinous process screws with pedicle screws in the C2 vertebrae.


   Materials and Methods Top


Eight fresh human cadaveric cervical spine specimens (C2) were harvested and subsequently frozen to -20°C. After being thawed to room temperature, each specimen was debrided of remaining soft tissue and labeled. A customs jig was used to clamp each specimen for screw insertion firmly. Screws were inserted into the vertebral body pairs on each side using one of two methods. [9],[10],[11] The pedicle screws were inserted in usual manner as in previous biomechanical studies [9],[10],[11],[12],[13] The starting point for spinous process screw insertion was located at the junction of the lamina and the spinous process and the direction of the screw was about 0° caudally in the sagittal plane and about 0° medially in the axial plane [Figure 1]. Screws were placed in such a manner so that the first thread penetrated the far cortex. All spinous process screws insertion was performed without breeching the inner cortex of lamina under direct visualization. After each hole was drilled and tapped according to the manufacturer's specifications, 4.0 mm cortical screw (Vertex Fixation System, Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN, USA) was inserted into the spinous process on one side, and pedicle screw was inserted on the other. The type of screw was randomized at each vertebrae, either left or right [Figure 2]. To grasp the screws with a coupling device, it was necessary to leave all of the screws approximately 4-6 mm outside. The screw length was defined as the actual working screw length.
Figure 1: Artist's illustration of the technique for placing C2 spinous process screws

Click here to view
Figure 2: Computed tomography scan showing placement of C2 spinous process screw (left) and pedicle screw (right)

Click here to view


Each vertebrae was held in a customs jig, which was attached to material testing machine (Material Testing System Inc., Changchun, China) [Figure 3]. A coupling device that fit around the head of the screw was used to pull out each screw at a loading rate of 2 mm/min. The motion segment was oriented so that the pullout force was collinear with the long axis of the screw. The uniaxial load to failure was recorded in Newton'st dependent test (for paired samples) was used to test for significance.
Figure 3: The material testing machine

Click here to view



   Results Top


The mean load to failure was 387 N for the spinous process screws and 465 N for the pedicle screws without significant difference ( t = −0.862, P = 0.403). [Table 1] shows the minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation for the spinous process and pedicle screws.

In all but three instances (38%), the spinous process pull out values exceeded the values for the pedicle screws. The working distances for the spinous process screws was shorter than for pedicle screws in each C2 specimen with a significant difference in the working length of the screws (t = 4.368, P< 0.001).
Table 1: Pull-out values

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Advances in fixation into the upper cervical spine have continued to progress over the past decade. In 1992, Jeanneret and Magerl first described the technique of transarticular screw fixation for C1-C2 [14] Biomechanical studies have shown transarticular screw fixation completely stops rotational movement at the atlanto-axial joint. [10],[11],[12] However, this procedure is technically demanding and there is a significant risk of VA, which has led many authors to advocate the use of screw-rod constructs to obtain fixation at the C1-C2 articulation. In 2001, Harms and Melcher described the technique of C1 and C2 fixation using C1 lateral mass screws and C2 pedicle screws using polyaxial screws with rods. [15] Biomechanical studies have shown C2 pedicle screw to be the most robust in insertional torque and pullout strength. However, C2 pedicle screw placement is still technically challenging and the risk of VA injury persists [10],[11],[12] Moreover, the diameter of the pedicle and the location of the foramen transversarium are variable. Cadaveric studies of the C2 pedicle have also shown high rates of violation of the foramen transversarium during attempted pedicle screw placement [4],[6] Smaller C2 pedicles or medial localization of the VA may preclude safe C2 pedicle screw placement in some patients [4],[6] The clinical study reported the incidence of screws breaching the pedicle of C2 was 7%. [16] C2 translaminar screw technique has some advantages [17] Gorek et al., [18] also found C2 translaminar screws to be equivalent in rigidity when compared with C2 pedicle screws. However, although the risk of VA injury has been essentially eliminated, neurologic injury from breakthrough of the inner cortex of the lamina by the drill or screw is still a possibility [18] Jea et al., [19] have found instances of critical violation of the inner cortical surface of the lamina as seen on postoperative computed tomography scans. Parker et al., [16] retrospectively reviewed the records of 152 C2 translaminar screws in patients undergoing posterior cervical fusion, and found 2 (1.3%) translaminar screws breaching the C2 lamina and one requiring acute revision. Another drawback to the technique is its requirement for adequately sized lamina.

For these reasons, a spinous process screws technique using screws placed directly onto the spinous process of C2 was devised [8],[20],[21] The starting point for the C2 spinous process screw insertion was located at the base of the spinous process, posterior C2 spinous process screw implantation can be performed bilaterally under direct visualization. This technique allows incorporation of the axis into atlantoaxial or craniocervical constructs, or incorporation into the subaxial spine, without risk of VA and spinal cord injury. Liu et al., [21] examined the feasibility of the C2 spinous process screw in a cadaveric study in 2010. They quantitatively evaluated the C2 spinous process and found that the C2 spinous process screw fixation has the anatomic feasibility [21] The researchers futher reported that the C2 spinous process screws were placed without impingement of spinal cord or VA and breakage of the spinous process in ten human cadaveric of cervical spine. They concluded that the C2 spinous process screw fixation had the anatomic feasibility and was easier to perform than pedicle screw fixation. [20]

Nagata et al., [8] reported a case of use of C2 spinous process screw for posterior cervical fixation as substitute for laminar screw in a patient with thin laminae and thought spinous process screw could be an option of C2 fixation for patients with high-riding VA and severe degenerated cervical spines including thin C2 laminas.

The C2 spinous process screw technique described in this paper has many advantages. First, the C2 spinous process screw technique is easy to be performed because the base of the spinous process can be directly visualized. Though the screw tip could be visualized, it did not seem to gives us the assurance that the C2 screw has not entered the spinal canal. Because of the canal being triangular, the screw may enter and exit through the lamina and the tip may be still visible. The starting point for spinous process screw insertion was selected at the junction of the lamina and the spinous process and the direction of the screw was about 0° caudally in the sagittal plane and about 0° medially in the axial plane. The starting point should be located to a little caudal direction in order to get an appropriate screw length because the C2 spinous process was in a triangle shape [8],[20],[21] Furthermore, C2 spinous process screws can be placed with visual and tactile feedback without fluoroscopy or image guidance. In addition, should transarticular or pedicle screw fixation fail, the use of the spinous process screw technique to salvage either fixation method provide a viable alternative [20] Biomechanically, the results of this study indicate that spinous process screws provide comparable pullout strength (387 N) to pedicle screws (465 N) in the cervical spine. Thus, spinous process screws may provide an alternative to pedicle screws for the fixation of the C2. A C2 spinous process screw seems a useful alternative for fixation as a salvage technique when there is anomalous anatomy, when other spinal fixation techniques have failed or as a primary fixation technique. Some surgeons use a C2 pars screw when the vertebral artery is high riding. Su et al.[22] compared the pullout strength of a C2 pedicle screw and C2 pars screw after cyclical testing and found C2 pedicle screws have twice the pullout strength of C2 pars screws after cyclical loading. On the other hand, spinous process screws may have more biomechanical advantages than C2 pars screws.

The limitations of this study are first we were limited to eight specimens, but presumed these would provide at least new preliminary data. Thus the sample size is small. Second, uniaxial pullout, which has been tested, is a rare mechanism for failure in clinical practice. On the other hand, multidirectional toggle and cyclical stresses are responsible for failure and these need to be tested in future projects. Third, each specimen had one spinous process screw. If there were two screws per spinous process given the limited bone stock available for purchase the result may be different. Four, cadaveric studies that look at the accuracy of screw placement and try to quantify the applicability of C2 spinous process screw placement in the general adult population would also be beneficial. Finally, Bone density measurements were not performed because we randomly selected alternating sides of the same caderveric specimen motion segment and previous studies have not found such studies to be useful in predicting cervical screw pullout strength. [23]


   Conclusion Top


Spinous process screws provide comparable pullout strength to pedicle screws of the C2. Spinous process screws may provide an alternative to pedicle screws fixation, especially with unusual anatomy or stripped screws.

 
   References Top

1.
Grob D, Jeanneret B, Aebi M, Markwalder TM. Atlanto-axial fusion with transarticular screw fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991;73:972-6.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Kansal R, Sharma A, Kukreja S. An anterior high cervical retropharyngeal approach for C1-C2 intrafacetal fusion and transarticular screw insertion. J Clin Neurosci 2011;18:1705-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Deen HG, Birch BD, Wharen RE, Reimer R. Lateral mass screw-rod fixation of the cervical spine: A prospective clinical series with 1-year follow up. Spine J 2003;3:489-95.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Ebraheim N, Rollins JR Jr, Xu R, Jackson WT. Anatomic consideration of C2 pedicle screw placement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996;21:691-5.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Goel A. C1-C2 pedicle screw fixation with rigid cantilever beam construct: Case report and technical note. Neurosurgery 2002;51:853-4.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.
Resnick DK, Lapsiwala S, Trost GR. Anatomic suitability of the C1-C2 complex for pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27:1494-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Wright NM. Posterior C2 fixation using bilateral, crossing C2 laminar screws: Case series and technical note. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004;17:158-62.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.
Nagata K, Baba S, Chikuda H, Takeshita K. Use of C2 spinous process screw for posterior cervical fixation as substitute for laminar screw in a patient with thin laminae. BMJ Case Rep 2013;24;2013.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Jones EL, Heller JG, Silcox DH, Hutton WC. Cervical pedicle screws versus lateral mass screws. Anatomic feasibility and biomechanical comparison. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22:977-82.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Kim SM, Lim TJ, Paterno J, Hwang TJ, Lee KW, Balabhadra RS, et al. Biomechanical comparison of anterior and posterior stabilization methods in atlantoaxial instability. J Neurosurg 2004;100:277-83.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Kuroki H, Rengachary SS, Goel VK, Holekamp SA, Pitkänen V, Ebraheim NA. Biomechanical comparison of two stabilization techniques of the atlantoaxial joints: Transarticular screw fixation versus screw and rod fixation. Neurosurgery 2005;56:151-9.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Melcher RP, Puttlitz CM, Kleinstueck FS, Lotz JC, Harms J, Bradford DS. Biomechanical testing of posterior atlantoaxial fixation techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27:2435-40.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Lapsiwala SB, Anderson PA, Oza A, Resnick DK. Biomechanical comparison of four C1 to C2 rigid fixative techniques: Anterior transarticular, posterior transarticular, C1 to C2 pedicle, and C1 to C2 intralaminar screws. Neurosurgery 2006;58:516-21.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Jeanneret B, Magerl F. Primary posterior fusion C1/2 in odontoid fractures: Indications, technique, and results of transarticular screw fixation. J Spinal Disord 1992;5:464-75.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Harms J, Melcher RP. Posterior C1-C2 fusion with polyaxial screw and rod fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26:2467-71.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Parker SL, McGirt MJ, Garcés-Ambrossi GL, Mehta VA, Sciubba DM, Witham TF, et al. Translaminar versus pedicle screw fixation of C2: Comparison of surgical morbidity and accuracy of 313 consecutive screws. Neurosurgery. 2009;64 Suppl 2:343-8.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Park JS, Cho DC, Sung JK. Feasibility of C2 translaminar screw as an alternative or salvage of C2 pedicle screws in atlantoaxial instability. J Spinal Disord Tech 2012;25:254-8.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Gorek J, Acaroglu E, Berven S, Yousef A, Puttlitz CM. Constructs incorporating intralaminar C2 screws provide rigid stability for atlantoaxial fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:1513-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Jea A, Sheth RN, Vanni S, Green BA, Levi AD. Modification of Wright′s technique for placement of bilateral crossing C2 translaminar screws: Technical note. Spine J 2008;8:656-60.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Liu GY, Xu RM, Ma WH, Sun SH, Lin HJ, Feng JX, et al. Anatomic comparison between spinous process screws and pedicle screws techniques of the second cervical vertebar. Zhongguo Gu Shang 2011;24:659-61.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Liu GY, Xu RM, Ma WH, Sun SH, Feng JX, Hu Y, et al. Anatomical considerations for the placement of C2 spinous process screws. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 2010;48:1653-6.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Su BW, Shimer AL, Chinthakunta S, Salloum K, Ames CP, Vaccaro AR, et al. Comparison of fatigue strength of C2 pedicle screws, C2 pars screws, and a hybrid construct in C1-C2 fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39:E12-9.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Heller JG, Estes BT, Zaouali M, Diop A. Biomechanical study of screws in the lateral masses: Variables affecting pull-out resistance. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996;78:1315-21.  Back to cited text no. 23
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Lu Mao
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery,1059 Zhongshan East Road, Ningbo 6th Hospital, 315040, Ningbo, ZheJiang
China
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: This study was supported by the Fund for Key Discipline of Shanghai Municipal Education Commission (J50206), Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0019-5413.144212

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


 
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2149    
    Printed22    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded62    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal