Biomechanical properties of different anterior and posterior techniques for atlantoaxial fixation: a finite element analysis

寰枢椎固定术不同前后路技术的生物力学特性:有限元分析

阅读:1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many techniques for atlantoaxial fixation have been developed. However, the biomechanical differences among various atlantoaxial fixation methods remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical influence of anterior and posterior atlantoaxial fixation techniques on fixed and nonfixed segments. METHODS: An occiput-C7 cervical finite element model was used to construct 6 surgical models including a Harms plate, a transoral atlantoaxial reduction plate (TARP), an anterior transarticular screw (ATS), a Magerl screw, a posterior screw-plate, and a screw-rod system. Range of motion (ROM), facet joint force (FJF), disc stress, screw stress, and bone-screw interface stress were calculated. RESULTS: The C1/2 ROMs were relatively small in the ATS and Magerl screw models under all loading directions except for extension (0.1°-1.0°). The posterior screw-plate system and screw-rod system generated greater stresses on the screws (77.6-1018.1 MPa) and bone-screw interfaces (58.3-499.0 MPa). The Harms plate and TARP models had relatively small ROMs (3.2°-17.6°), disc stress (1.3-7.6 MPa), and FJF (3.3-106.8 N) at the nonfixed segments. Changes in disc stress and FJF of the cervical segments were not consistent with changes in ROM. CONCLUSIONS: ATS and Magerl screws may provide good atlantoaxial stability. The posterior screw-rod system and screw-plate system may have higher risks of screw loosening and breakage. The Harms plate and TARP model may more effectively relieve nonfixed segment degeneration than other techniques. The C0/1 or C2/3 segment may not be more susceptible to degeneration than other nonfixed segments after C1/2 fixation.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。