The “Skipped Segment Screw” Construct: An Alternative to Conventional Lateral Mass Fixation–Biomechanical Analysis in a Porcine Cervical Spine Model.
10.4184/asj.2017.11.5.733
- Author:
Kedar Prashant PADHYE
1
;
Yuvaraja MURUGAN
;
Raunak MILTON
;
N Arunai NAMBI RAJ
;
Kenny Samuel DAVID
Author Information
1. Department of Spinal Disorders, Christian Medical College, Ida Scudder Road, Vellore, India. kedarorth@gmail.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Cadaver;
Cervical vertebrae;
Laminectomy;
Swine;
Biomechanics
- MeSH:
Cadaver;
Cervical Vertebrae;
Equidae;
Female;
Freedom;
Laminectomy;
Operative Time;
Range of Motion, Articular;
Spine*;
Surgeons;
Swine
- From:Asian Spine Journal
2017;11(5):733-738
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
STUDY DESIGN: Cadaveric biomechanical study. PURPOSE: We compared the “skipped segment screw” (SSS) construct with the conventional “all segment screw” (ASS) construct for cervical spine fixation in six degrees of freedom in terms of the range of motion (ROM). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Currently, no clear guidelines are available in the literature for the configuration of lateral mass (LM) screwrod fixation for cervical spine stabilization. Most surgeons tend to insert screws bilaterally at all segments from C3 to C6 with the assumption that implants at every level will provide maximum stability. METHODS: Six porcine cervical spine specimens were harvested from fresh 6–9-month-old pigs. Each specimen was sequentially tested in the following order: intact uninstrumented (UIS), SSS (LM screws in C3, C5, and C7 bilaterally), and ASS (LM screws in C3–C7 bilaterally). Biomechanical testing was performed with a force of 2 Nm in six degrees of freedom and 3D motion tracking was performed. RESULTS: The two-tailed paired t-test was used for statistical analysis. There was a significant decrease in ROM in instrumented specimens compared with that in UIS specimens in all six degrees of motion (p<0.05), whereas there was no significant difference in ROM between the different types of constructs (SSS and ASS). CONCLUSIONS: Because both configurations provide comparable stability under physiological loading, we provide a biomechanical basis for the use of SSS configuration owing to its potential clinical advantages, such as relatively less bulk of implants within a small operative field, relative ease of manipulating the rod into position, shorter surgical time, less blood loss, lower risk of screw-related complications, less implant-related costs, and most importantly, no compromise in the required stability needed until fusion.
