寰枢椎后路柔性固定的生物力学研究

doi:10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2022.1.14

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的分析细棒、PEEK棒固定对寰枢关节稳定性的影响。方法采用6具新鲜成人枕骨（occipital bone，Oc）~颈椎C4节段进行测试，模拟以下手术及固定状态：①完整状态；②损伤状态：枢椎齿状突II型骨折；③坚强固定：寰枢椎均采用普通椎弓根螺钉固定，直径3.5 mm钛棒连接；④PEEK棒：直径3.5 mm的PEEK棒连接；⑤细棒：直径2.0 mm钛棒连接。采用重复测量实验设计，在完整、损伤和不同的固定状态下，通过脊柱试验机对标本分别施加1.5 N·m的前屈/后伸、左/右侧弯和左/右轴向旋转的纯力偶矩。采用Optotrak三维运动测量系统连续采集标本运动，分析寰枢椎之间角度运动范围和中性区。结果采用直径3.5 mm的钛棒，2.0 mm的细棒以及3.5 mm的PEEK棒固定后，在前屈、后伸、侧弯和旋转方向上均显著减小了固定节段的运动范围（P<0.05）。直径3.5 mm和2.0 mm的棒固定后的运动范围，在各个方向上无显著性差异。PEEK棒固定的运动范围仅在侧弯方向上大于坚强固定（P＝0.005），其他方向无显著性差异。3种固定方式在屈伸、侧弯和旋转方向上均显著减小了固定节段的中性区（P<0.05）。各种固定方式之间相比较，无显著性差异（P>0.05）。结论在寰枢关节采用直径2.0 mm的细棒固定，与坚强固定的稳定性相当。采用直径3.5 mm的PEEK棒固定，在前屈、后伸、旋转方向上与坚强固定的稳定性相当，在侧弯方向上弱于坚强固定。

关键词: 寰椎, , , 枢椎, , , 后路, , , 柔性固定, , , 生物力学

Abstract: Objectives To analyze the influence of thin rod and PEEK rod on the stability of the atlantoaxial joint. Methods A series of in vitro biomechanical tests were performed using six fresh adult cervical spines (occipital bone-C4 segment) to simulate different conditions in surgery including the (1) intact state; (2) injury state: type II odontoid process fracture; (3) rigid fixation: All atlantoaxial pedicle screws were connected by titanium rods with a diameter of 3.5 mm; (4) PEEK rod: atlantoaxial pedicle screws were connected by a PEEK rod with a diameter of 3.5 mm; (5) thin rod: atlantoaxial pedicle screws were connected by a thin rod with a diameter of 2.0 mm. Biomechanical studies of samples were performed under intact, injury and various fixation statements using a spinal testing machine, while applying a constant moment of 1.5 Nm in flexion-extension, left-right lateral bending, and left-right axial rotation directions. A repeated measurement design was employed in all tests. Movement were measured consecutively by an Optotrak Certus 3D measurement system in order to analyze the range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ) of atlantoaxial joint. Results In the atlantoaxial joint, ROM of fixation segments were significantly reduced in all directions when a 3.5 mm diameter titanium rod, a 2.0 mm diameter titanium rod, and a 3.5 mm diameter PEEK rod was used (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in ROM of fixation segments for rigid fixation and 2.0 mm diameter titanium rod in all directions (P>0.05). In lateral bending, ROM of the PEEK rod was significantly larger compared with rigid fixation (P=0.005). NZs of fixation segments for rigid fixation, 2.0 mm diameter titanium rod, and a 3.5 mm diameter PEEK rod fixation were significantly reduced (P<0.05). There were no significant differences among these fixations (P>0.05). Conclusions In the atlantoaxial joint, stability of using 2.0 mm diameter titanium rod fixation was comparable to rigid fixation, but stability of using PEEK rod fixation was weaker in the lateral bending direction.

Key words: , Atlas, 　Axis, 　Posterior, , , Flexible fixation, 　Biomechanics

中图分类号:

R318.01

童杰, 季伟, 黄志平, 周若舟, 房佐忠, 朱青安. 寰枢椎后路柔性固定的生物力学研究[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2022, 40(1): 72-77.

Tong Jie, Ji Wei, Huang Zhiping, Zhou Ruozhou, Fang Zuozhong, Zhu Qingan. Biomechanical research on posterior flexible fixation at atlantoaxial joint[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Anatomy, 2022, 40(1): 72-77.

参考文献 31

[1]	Gornet MF, Chan FW, Coleman JC, et al. Biomechanical assessment of a PEEK rod system for semi-rigid fixation of lumbar fusion constructs[J]. J Biomech Eng, 2011, 133(8): 081009. DOI: 10.1115/1.4004862.
[2]	Galbusera F, Bellini CM, Anasetti F, et al. Rigid and flexible spinal stabilization devices: a biomechanical comparison[J]. Med Eng Phys, 2011, 33(4): 490-496. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2010.11.018.
[3]	Biswas JK, Roy S, Rana M, et al. A comparison of rigid, semi-rigid and flexible spinal stabilization devices: a finite element study[J]. Proc Inst Mech Eng H, 2019, 233(12): 1292-1298. DOI: 10.1177/0954411919880694.
[4]	Fan W, Guo LX, Zhao D. Stress analysis of the implants in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion under static and vibration loadings: a comparison between pedicle screw fixation system with rigid and flexible rods[J]. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 2019, 30(10): 118. DOI: 10.1007/s10856-019-6320-0.
[5]	Jacobs E, Roth AK, Arts JJ, et al. Reduction of intradiscal pressure by the use of polycarbonate-urethane rods as compared to titanium rods in posterior thoracolumbar spinal fixation[J]. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 2017, 28(10): 148. DOI: 10.1007/s10856-017-5953-0.
[6]	Hsieh YY, Tsuang FY, Kuo YJ, et al. Biomechanical analysis of single-level interbody fusion with different internal fixation rod materials: a finite element analysis[J]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2020, 21(1): 100. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-3111-1.
[7]	Nohara H, Kanaya F. Biomechanical study of adjacent intervertebral motion after lumbar spinal fusion and flexible stabilization using polyethylene-terephthalate bands[J]. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2004, 17(3): 215-219. DOI: 10.1097/00024720-200406000-00008.
[8]	Di Silvestre M, Lolli F, Bakaloudis G, et al. Dynamic stabilization for degenerative lumbar scoliosis in elderly patients[J]. Spine, 2010, 35(2): 227-234. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bd3be6.
[9]	Di Silvestre M, Lolli F, Bakaloudis G. Degenerative lumbar scoliosis in elderly patients: dynamic stabilization without fusion versus posterior instrumented fusion[J]. Spine J, 2014, 14(1): 1-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.10.023.
[10]	Park H, Zhang HY, Cho BY, et al. Change of lumbar motion after multi-level posterior dynamic stabilization with bioflex system : 1 year follow up[J]. J Korean Neurosurg Soc, 2009, 46(4): 285-291. DOI: 10.3340/jkns.2009.46.4.285.
[11]	Selim A, Mercer S, Tang F. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rods for lumbar fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Int J Spine Surg, 2018, 12(2): 190-200. DOI: 10.14444/5027.
[12]	Wang Q, Liu J, Shi Y, et al. Short-term effects of a dynamic neutralization system (Dynesys) for multi-segmental lumbar disc herniation[J]. Eur Spine J, 2016, 25(5): 1409-1416. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-4307-1.
[13]	Hu Y, Gu YJ, Xu RM, et al. Short-term clinical observation of the Dynesys neutralization system for the treatment of degenerative disease of the lumbar vertebrae[J]. Orthop Surg, 2011, 3(3): 167-175. DOI: 10.1111/j.1757-7861.2011.00142.x.
[14]	Mandigo CE, Sampath P, Kaiser MG. Posterior dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine: pedicle based stabilization with the AccuFlex rod system[J]. Neurosurg Focus, 2007, 22(1): E9. DOI: 10.3171/foc. 2007. 22.1.9.
[15]	Mavrogenis AF, Vottis C, Triantafyllopoulos G, et al. PEEK rod systems for the spine[J]. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol, 2014, 24(S1): S111-S116. DOI: 10.1007/s00590-014-1421-4.
[16]	Li ZH, Li FN, Yu SZ, et al. Two-year follow-up results of the Isobar TTL Semi-Rigid Rod System for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease[J]. J Clin Neurosci, 2013, 20(3): 394-399. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2012.02.043.
[17]	Wu JC, Huang WC, Tsai HW, et al. Pedicle screw loosening in dynamic stabilization: incidence, risk, and outcome in 126 patients[J]. Neurosurg Focus, 2011, 31(4): E9. DOI: 10.3171/2011.7.FOCUS11125.
[18]	Gomleksiz C, Sasani M, Oktenoglu T, et al. A short history of posterior dynamic stabilization[J]. Adv Orthop, 2012, 2012: 1-12. DOI: 10.1155/2012/629698.
[19]	Oikonomidis S, Ashqar G, Kaulhausen T, et al. Clinical experiences with a PEEK-based dynamic instrumentation device in lumbar spinal surgery: 2 years and no more[J]. J Orthop Surg Res, 2018, 13(1): 196. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-018-0905-z.
[20]	Putzier M, Hoff E, Tohtz S, et al. Dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion: Part II. No clinical benefit for asymptomatic, initially degenerated adjacent segments after 6 years follow-up[J]. Eur Spine J, 2010, 19(12): 2181-2189. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1517-4.
[21]	Zhou ZJ, Xia P, Zhao X, et al. Can posterior dynamic stabilization reduce the risk of adjacent segment deterioration[J]? Turkish Neurosurg, 2013, 23(5): 579-589. DOI: 10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.6573-12.1.
[22]	Lee SE, Jahng T, Kim HJ. Facet joint changes after application of lumbar nonfusion dynamic stabilization[J]. Neurosurg Focus, 2016, 40(1): E6. DOI: 10.3171/2015.10.FOCUS15456.
[23]	Kashkoush A, Agarwal N, Paschel E, et al. Evaluation of a hybrid dynamic stabilization and fusion system in the lumbar spine: a 10 year experience[J]. Cureus, 2016, 8(6): e637. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.637.
[24]	Tan MS, Wang HM, Wang YT, et al. Morphometric evaluation of screw fixation in atlas via posterior arch and lateral mass[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2003, 28(9): 888-895. DOI: 10.1097/01.BRS.00000 58719. 48596.CC.
[25]	林周胜, 黄志平, 陈建庭, 等. 棒直径对椎弓根螺钉固定稳定性和脊柱承载影响的生物力学研究[J]. 实用医学杂志, 2013, 29(1): 1-3. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2013.01.001.
[26]	Kim K, Park WM, Kim YH, et al. Stress analysis in a pedicle screw fixation system with flexible rods in the lumbar spine[J]. Proc Inst Mech Eng H, 2010, 224(3): 477-485. DOI: 10.1243/09544119JEIM611.
[27]	Kim YS, Zhang HY , Moon BJ, et al. Nitinol spring rod dynamic stabilization system and Nitinol memory loops in surgical treatment for lumbar disc disorders: short-term follow up[J]. Neurosurg Focus, 2007, 22(1): E10. PMID: 17608331.
[28]	Heo DH, Cho YJ, Cho SM, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar dynamic stabilization using pedicle screws and a nitinol spring rod system with 2-year minimum follow-up[J]. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2012, 25(8): 409-414. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318231665d.
[29]	Korovessis P, Papazisis Z, Koureas G, et al. Rigid, semirigid versus dynamic instrumentation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a correlative radiological and clinical analysis of short-term results[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2004, 29(7): 735-742. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000112072.83196.0f.
[30]	Ponnappan RK, Serhan H, Zarda B, et al. Biomechanical evaluation and comparison of polyetheretherketone rod system to traditional titanium rod fixation[J]. Spine J, 2009, 9(3): 263-267. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.08.002.
[31]	Abode-Iyamah K, Kim SB, Grosland N, et al. Spinal motion and intradiscal pressure measurements before and after lumbar spine instrumentation with titanium or PEEK rods[J]. J Clin Neurosci, 2014, 21(4): 651-655. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2013.08.010.