OBJECTIVETo compare the stability of subaxial cervical anterior transpedicular screw(ATPS) fixation and three traditional fixations for three-column injury.

METHODSSix specimens of cervical spine were prepared. After measurememt of the range of motion(ROM) in intact state, the specimens were made into three-column injury models. The models were reconstructed with an anterior cervical cage, and stabilized by ATPS, anterior plate(AP), anterior plate + lateral mass screw(AP+LMS) and posterior transpedicular screw(PTPS). The ROM of the models in the four states were measured, and the results of data were compared after standardization.

RESULTSThe normalized ROM of ATPS state in flexion-extension, lateral bending, axial rotation were(77.17±4.75)%, (82.00±2.61)%, (83.17±2.23)%, which were significant small than those in intact state(<0.05). The normalized ROM of AP state in flexion-extension, lateral bending, axial rotation were(119.67±7.42)%, (116.33±7.53)%, (112.67±5.99)% , which were significant larger than those in intact state(<0.05). The normalized ROM of AP in all directions were significant larger than those of ATPS(<0.05). There was no significant difference between normalized ROM of PTPS state and those of ATPS state in flexion-extension and lateral bending(>0.05). The normalized ROM of PTPS state in axial rotation was(6.83±2.48)% and was significant larger than that of ATPS state(=0.009). The normalized ROM of AP+LMS state in flexion-extension was(68.50±2.43)%, which was significant smaller than that of ATPS state(=0.003). There was no significant difference between the normalized ROM of AP+LMS state and those of ATPS state in lateral bending and axial rotation(>0.05).

CONCLUSIONSSubaxial cervical three-column injury model reconstruction by ATPS can provide the adequate primary stability, of which biomechanics property is superior compared to AP and PTPS, and is similar to that of AP+LMS. It can be applied to the patients with no need to decompression and reduction through posterior approach.