Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research ›› 2012, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (30): 5558-5562.doi: 10.3969/j.issn. 2095-4344.2012.30. 011

Previous Articles     Next Articles

The biomechanical stability of cable dragged reduction and cantilever beam internal fixation by posterior atlantoaxial approach

Huang Hai-feng1, Liu Hao2, Li Tao2, Gong Quan2, Luo Yu-kun2, Wang Bei-yu2   

  1. 1Department of Spine Surgery, Central Hospital of Mianyang, Mianyang 621000, Sichuan Province, China;
    2Department of Orthopedics, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu 640041, Sichuan Province, China
  • Received:2011-12-03 Revised:2011-12-27 Online:2012-07-22 Published:2012-07-22
  • Contact: 刘浩，教授，博士生导师，四川大学华西医院骨科，四川省成都市 640041 liuhao6304@ 163.com
  • About author:Huang Hai-feng★, Master, Attending physician, Department of Spine Surgery, Central Hospital of Mianyang, Mianyang 621000, Sichuan Province, China huanghai.feng@ yahoo.com.cn

PDF

448

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: There are many methods of internal fixation for atlantoaxial dislocation caused by odontoid fractures, but all of them emphasize reset before fixation, so there is no a internal fixation both with satisfactory biomechanical stability and better intraoperative reset ability.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the biomechanical properties of cable dragged reduction and cantilever beam internal fixation via posterior approach for upper cervical spine stability.
METHODS: Occipitocervical spine specimens from twelve fresh human cadaveric were selected to establish fracture test model of odontoid Anderson type 2 which were mounted in a spine-testing machine to record the three-dimensional angular movement under 1.5 N•m load. The specimens were fixed by Brooks titanium cable, Magerl screws, the lateral mass screws in the atlas+axial pedicle screw and cable dragged reduction and cantilever beam.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Under 1.5 N•m load, the range of motion (ROM) during flexion and side bending of cable dragged reduction and cantilever beam internal fixation group were significantly smaller than those of other groups (P < 0.05). The ROM during in extension of cable dragged reduction and cantilever beam internal fixation group was significantly larger than that of Magerl screws fixation group (P < 0.05), but which was smaller than that of the Brooks titanium cable and pedicle screw fixation groups (P < 0.05). The ROM during rotation of cable dragged reduction and cantilever beam and Magerl screws fixation groups had no difference (P > 0.05), but which was smaller than that of the Brooks titanium cable and pedicle screw fixation groups (P < 0.05). The results indicated that stability of cable dragged reduction and cantilever beam internal fixation via posterior approach are better than the other groups, but which was only lower than Magerl screws fixation in the stability of the extension.

CLC Number: