A. Kulkarni, Priyambada Kumar, Gautam M. Shetty, Sandipan Roy, P. S. Manickam, Raja Dhason, A. R. S. S. Chadalavada, Y. Adbalwad
{"title":"多层次颈椎后路器械模型生物力学参数的有限元分析比较:C7椎体的侧向质量螺钉固定与跨椎螺钉固定。","authors":"A. Kulkarni, Priyambada Kumar, Gautam M. Shetty, Sandipan Roy, P. S. Manickam, Raja Dhason, A. R. S. S. Chadalavada, Y. Adbalwad","doi":"10.31616/asj.2023.0231","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Study Design\nBasic research.\n\n\nPurpose\nThis finite element (FE) analysis (FEA) aimed to compare the biomechanical parameters in multilevel posterior cervical fixation with the C7 vertebra instrumented by two techniques: lateral mass screw (LMS) vs. transpedicular screw (TPS).\n\n\nOverview of Literature\nVery few studies have compared the biomechanics of different multilevel posterior cervical fixation constructs.\n\n\nMethods\nFour FE models of multilevel posterior cervical fixation were created and tested by FEA in various permutations and combinations. Generic differences in fixation were determined, and the following parameters were assessed: (1) maximum moment at failure, (2) maximum angulation at failure, (3) maximum stress at failure, (4) point of failure, (5) intervertebral disc stress, and (6) influence of adding a C2 pars screw to the multilevel construct.\n\n\nResults\nThe maximum moment at failure was higher in the LMS fixation group than in the TPS group. The maximum angulation in flexion allowed by LMS was higher than that by TPS. The maximum strain at failure was higher in the LMS group than in the TPS group. The maximum stress endured before failure was higher in the TPS group than in the LMS group. Intervertebral stress levels at C6-C7 and C7-T1 intervertebral discs were higher in the LMS group than in the TPS group. For both models where C2 fixation was performed, lower von Mises stress was recorded at the C2-C3 intervertebral disc level.\n\n\nConclusions\nEnding a multilevel posterior cervical fixation construct with TPS fixation rather than LMS fixation at the C7 vertebra provides a stiff and more constrained construct system, with higher stress endurance to compressive force. The constraint and durability of the construct can be further enhanced by adding a C2 pars screw in the fixation system.","PeriodicalId":8555,"journal":{"name":"Asian Spine Journal","volume":"32 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Finite Element Analysis Comparing the Biomechanical Parameters in Multilevel Posterior Cervical Instrumentation Model Involving Lateral Mass Screw versus Transpedicular Screw Fixation at the C7 Vertebra.\",\"authors\":\"A. Kulkarni, Priyambada Kumar, Gautam M. Shetty, Sandipan Roy, P. S. Manickam, Raja Dhason, A. R. S. S. Chadalavada, Y. Adbalwad\",\"doi\":\"10.31616/asj.2023.0231\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Study Design\\nBasic research.\\n\\n\\nPurpose\\nThis finite element (FE) analysis (FEA) aimed to compare the biomechanical parameters in multilevel posterior cervical fixation with the C7 vertebra instrumented by two techniques: lateral mass screw (LMS) vs. transpedicular screw (TPS).\\n\\n\\nOverview of Literature\\nVery few studies have compared the biomechanics of different multilevel posterior cervical fixation constructs.\\n\\n\\nMethods\\nFour FE models of multilevel posterior cervical fixation were created and tested by FEA in various permutations and combinations. Generic differences in fixation were determined, and the following parameters were assessed: (1) maximum moment at failure, (2) maximum angulation at failure, (3) maximum stress at failure, (4) point of failure, (5) intervertebral disc stress, and (6) influence of adding a C2 pars screw to the multilevel construct.\\n\\n\\nResults\\nThe maximum moment at failure was higher in the LMS fixation group than in the TPS group. The maximum angulation in flexion allowed by LMS was higher than that by TPS. The maximum strain at failure was higher in the LMS group than in the TPS group. The maximum stress endured before failure was higher in the TPS group than in the LMS group. Intervertebral stress levels at C6-C7 and C7-T1 intervertebral discs were higher in the LMS group than in the TPS group. For both models where C2 fixation was performed, lower von Mises stress was recorded at the C2-C3 intervertebral disc level.\\n\\n\\nConclusions\\nEnding a multilevel posterior cervical fixation construct with TPS fixation rather than LMS fixation at the C7 vertebra provides a stiff and more constrained construct system, with higher stress endurance to compressive force. The constraint and durability of the construct can be further enhanced by adding a C2 pars screw in the fixation system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\"32 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2023.0231\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2023.0231","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Finite Element Analysis Comparing the Biomechanical Parameters in Multilevel Posterior Cervical Instrumentation Model Involving Lateral Mass Screw versus Transpedicular Screw Fixation at the C7 Vertebra.
Study Design
Basic research.
Purpose
This finite element (FE) analysis (FEA) aimed to compare the biomechanical parameters in multilevel posterior cervical fixation with the C7 vertebra instrumented by two techniques: lateral mass screw (LMS) vs. transpedicular screw (TPS).
Overview of Literature
Very few studies have compared the biomechanics of different multilevel posterior cervical fixation constructs.
Methods
Four FE models of multilevel posterior cervical fixation were created and tested by FEA in various permutations and combinations. Generic differences in fixation were determined, and the following parameters were assessed: (1) maximum moment at failure, (2) maximum angulation at failure, (3) maximum stress at failure, (4) point of failure, (5) intervertebral disc stress, and (6) influence of adding a C2 pars screw to the multilevel construct.
Results
The maximum moment at failure was higher in the LMS fixation group than in the TPS group. The maximum angulation in flexion allowed by LMS was higher than that by TPS. The maximum strain at failure was higher in the LMS group than in the TPS group. The maximum stress endured before failure was higher in the TPS group than in the LMS group. Intervertebral stress levels at C6-C7 and C7-T1 intervertebral discs were higher in the LMS group than in the TPS group. For both models where C2 fixation was performed, lower von Mises stress was recorded at the C2-C3 intervertebral disc level.
Conclusions
Ending a multilevel posterior cervical fixation construct with TPS fixation rather than LMS fixation at the C7 vertebra provides a stiff and more constrained construct system, with higher stress endurance to compressive force. The constraint and durability of the construct can be further enhanced by adding a C2 pars screw in the fixation system.