Biomechanical evaluation of DTRAX® posterior cervical cage stabilization with and without lateral mass fixation

Leonard I Voronov,1,2 Krzysztof B Siemionow,3 Robert M Havey,1,2 Gerard Carandang,2 Avinash G Patwardhan1,2 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, 2Musculoskeletal Biomechanics Laboratory, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, 3Department of Orthopa...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Voronov LI, Siemionow KB, Havey RM, Carandang G, Patwardhan AG
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/89aaf23cadc14d61b60ba0c3e3b0a8d4
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:doaj.org-article:89aaf23cadc14d61b60ba0c3e3b0a8d4
record_format dspace
spelling oai:doaj.org-article:89aaf23cadc14d61b60ba0c3e3b0a8d42021-12-02T07:44:53ZBiomechanical evaluation of DTRAX® posterior cervical cage stabilization with and without lateral mass fixation1179-1470https://doaj.org/article/89aaf23cadc14d61b60ba0c3e3b0a8d42016-08-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.dovepress.com/biomechanical-evaluation-of-dtraxreg-posterior-cervical-cage-stabiliza-peer-reviewed-article-MDERhttps://doaj.org/toc/1179-1470Leonard I Voronov,1,2 Krzysztof B Siemionow,3 Robert M Havey,1,2 Gerard Carandang,2 Avinash G Patwardhan1,2 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, 2Musculoskeletal Biomechanics Laboratory, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, 3Department of Orthopaedics, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA Introduction: Lateral mass screw (LMS) fixation with plates or rods is the current standard procedure for posterior cervical fusion. Recently, implants placed between the facet joints have become available as an alternative to LMS or transfacet screws for patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical stability of the DTRAX® cervical cage for single- and two-level fusion and compare this to the stability achieved with LMS fixation with rods in a two-level construct.Methods: Seven cadaveric cervical spine (C3–C7) specimens were tested in flexion–extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation to ±1.5 Nm moment without preload (0 N) in the following conditions: 1) intact (C3–C7), 2) LMS and rods at C4–C5 and C5–C6, 3) removal of all rods (LMS retained) and placement of bilateral posterior cages at C5–C6, 4) bilateral posterior cages at C4–C5 and C5–C6 (without LMS and rods), and 5) C4–C5 and C5–C6 bilateral posterior cages at C4–C5 and C5–C6 with rods reinserted.Results: Bilateral posterior cervical cages significantly reduced range of motion in all tested directions in both single- and multilevel constructs (P<0.05). Similar stability was achieved with bilateral posterior cages and LMS in a two-level construct: 0.6°±0.3° vs 1.2°±0.4° in flexion–­extension (P=0.001), (5.0°±2.6° vs 3.1°±1.3°) in lateral bending (P=0.053), (1.3°±1.0° vs 2.2°±0.9°) in axial rotation (P=0.091) for posterior cages and LMS, respectively. Posterior cages, when placed as an adjunct to LMS, further reduced range of motion in a multilevel construct (P<0.05).Conclusion: Bilateral posterior cages provide similar cervical segmental stability compared with a LMS and rod construct and may be an alternative surgical option for select patients. Furthermore, supplementation of a lateral mass construct with posterior cages increases cervical spine stability in single- and multilevel conditions. Keywords: cervical spine, posterior fusion, biomechanics, cervical facets, DTRAX cervical cage, lateral mass screwVoronov LISiemionow KBHavey RMCarandang GPatwardhan AGDove Medical Pressarticlecervical spineposterior fusionbiomechanicscervical facetsDTRAX cervical cagelateral mass screwMedical technologyR855-855.5ENMedical Devices: Evidence and Research, Vol Volume 9, Pp 285-290 (2016)
institution DOAJ
collection DOAJ
language EN
topic cervical spine
posterior fusion
biomechanics
cervical facets
DTRAX cervical cage
lateral mass screw
Medical technology
R855-855.5
spellingShingle cervical spine
posterior fusion
biomechanics
cervical facets
DTRAX cervical cage
lateral mass screw
Medical technology
R855-855.5
Voronov LI
Siemionow KB
Havey RM
Carandang G
Patwardhan AG
Biomechanical evaluation of DTRAX® posterior cervical cage stabilization with and without lateral mass fixation
description Leonard I Voronov,1,2 Krzysztof B Siemionow,3 Robert M Havey,1,2 Gerard Carandang,2 Avinash G Patwardhan1,2 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, 2Musculoskeletal Biomechanics Laboratory, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, 3Department of Orthopaedics, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA Introduction: Lateral mass screw (LMS) fixation with plates or rods is the current standard procedure for posterior cervical fusion. Recently, implants placed between the facet joints have become available as an alternative to LMS or transfacet screws for patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical stability of the DTRAX® cervical cage for single- and two-level fusion and compare this to the stability achieved with LMS fixation with rods in a two-level construct.Methods: Seven cadaveric cervical spine (C3–C7) specimens were tested in flexion–extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation to ±1.5 Nm moment without preload (0 N) in the following conditions: 1) intact (C3–C7), 2) LMS and rods at C4–C5 and C5–C6, 3) removal of all rods (LMS retained) and placement of bilateral posterior cages at C5–C6, 4) bilateral posterior cages at C4–C5 and C5–C6 (without LMS and rods), and 5) C4–C5 and C5–C6 bilateral posterior cages at C4–C5 and C5–C6 with rods reinserted.Results: Bilateral posterior cervical cages significantly reduced range of motion in all tested directions in both single- and multilevel constructs (P<0.05). Similar stability was achieved with bilateral posterior cages and LMS in a two-level construct: 0.6°±0.3° vs 1.2°±0.4° in flexion–­extension (P=0.001), (5.0°±2.6° vs 3.1°±1.3°) in lateral bending (P=0.053), (1.3°±1.0° vs 2.2°±0.9°) in axial rotation (P=0.091) for posterior cages and LMS, respectively. Posterior cages, when placed as an adjunct to LMS, further reduced range of motion in a multilevel construct (P<0.05).Conclusion: Bilateral posterior cages provide similar cervical segmental stability compared with a LMS and rod construct and may be an alternative surgical option for select patients. Furthermore, supplementation of a lateral mass construct with posterior cages increases cervical spine stability in single- and multilevel conditions. Keywords: cervical spine, posterior fusion, biomechanics, cervical facets, DTRAX cervical cage, lateral mass screw
format article
author Voronov LI
Siemionow KB
Havey RM
Carandang G
Patwardhan AG
author_facet Voronov LI
Siemionow KB
Havey RM
Carandang G
Patwardhan AG
author_sort Voronov LI
title Biomechanical evaluation of DTRAX® posterior cervical cage stabilization with and without lateral mass fixation
title_short Biomechanical evaluation of DTRAX® posterior cervical cage stabilization with and without lateral mass fixation
title_full Biomechanical evaluation of DTRAX® posterior cervical cage stabilization with and without lateral mass fixation
title_fullStr Biomechanical evaluation of DTRAX® posterior cervical cage stabilization with and without lateral mass fixation
title_full_unstemmed Biomechanical evaluation of DTRAX® posterior cervical cage stabilization with and without lateral mass fixation
title_sort biomechanical evaluation of dtrax® posterior cervical cage stabilization with and without lateral mass fixation
publisher Dove Medical Press
publishDate 2016
url https://doaj.org/article/89aaf23cadc14d61b60ba0c3e3b0a8d4
work_keys_str_mv AT voronovli biomechanicalevaluationofdtraxregposteriorcervicalcagestabilizationwithandwithoutlateralmassfixation
AT siemionowkb biomechanicalevaluationofdtraxregposteriorcervicalcagestabilizationwithandwithoutlateralmassfixation
AT haveyrm biomechanicalevaluationofdtraxregposteriorcervicalcagestabilizationwithandwithoutlateralmassfixation
AT carandangg biomechanicalevaluationofdtraxregposteriorcervicalcagestabilizationwithandwithoutlateralmassfixation
AT patwardhanag biomechanicalevaluationofdtraxregposteriorcervicalcagestabilizationwithandwithoutlateralmassfixation
_version_ 1718399234952134656