Chinese Journal of Clinical Anatomy ›› 2023, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (5): 588-592.doi: 10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2023.5.15

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Biomechanical comparison of horizontal screw-screw crosslink and horizontal rod-rod crosslink in C1-C2 pedicle screw-rod fixation 

Ouyang Beiping1, Ma Xiangyang2*, Luo Chunshan1, Zou Xiaobao2, Liang Dongzhu3, Lu Tingsheng1, Chen Qiling 1   

  1. 1.Department of Spine Surgery, Guizhou Orthopedics Hospital, Guiyang 550004, China;  2. Department of Orthopedics, General Hospital of Southern Theatre Command of PLA, Guangzhou 510010, China;  3. Department of Anatomy, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China
  • Received:2022-10-22 Online:2023-09-25 Published:2023-10-17

Abstract: Objective    To investigate the biomechanical stability of the horizontal screw-screw crosslink in C1-C2 pedicle screw-rod fixation (C1-C2 PSR).  Methods  Six fresh human occipitocervical specimens were divided into the intact state group (group A), and the atlantoaxial instability model of type II odontoid fracture was established on the intact state group (group B). The C1-C2 PSR was performed on each specimen in the instability group (group C). In group C, horizontal rod-rod crosslink (hR-R CL) and horizontal screw-screw crosslink (hS-S CL) were successively installed in each specimen of group C to form group D and group E, respectively. Group E included upper transverse connection (two atlas screw tails) E1 group and lower transverse connection (two axis screw tails) E2 group. The specimen models were tested in order of flexion, extension, lateral flexion and lateral rotation on a  three dimensional motion machine, and the atlantoaxial ROM of each group of specimens was obtained. Repeated measure ANOVA was used to evaluate the biomechanical properties of each group.    Results   ① In all directions, the ROM the intact group and the internal fixation group was lower than that of the instability group, and there were significant differences (P< 0.05). ② In the direction of flexion and extension, there was no statistical difference in the ROM among the four internal fixation groups (P>0.05),  ROM: Group A < Group C = Group D = Group E1/E2 < Group B, in the direction of lateral flexion and rotation, the ROM of the crosslink internal fixation group was lower than that of the non-crosslink internal fixation group, and there was significant difference (P<0.05), ROM) : Group A < Group C < Group D = Group E1/E2 < Group B. ③ There were no statistical differences between group D and E1/E2 group in all directions (P>0.05), and no statistical differences between group E1 and E2 in all directions (P> 0.05).    Conclusions   Crosslink has good anti-axial rotation stability in C1-C2 pedicle screw-rod fixation. The hR-R CL has the same biomechanical stability as the traditional hS-S CL. The biomechanical properties of the hR-R CL are basically the same when it is installed on the atlas side and the axial side.

Key words: Crosslink; ,  , Posterior; ,  ,  Atlantoaxial; ,  , Biomechanics

CLC Number: