These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A biomechanical comparison of three surgical approaches in bilateral subaxial cervical facet dislocation.
    Author: Kim SM, Lim TJ, Paterno J, Park J, Kim DH.
    Journal: J Neurosurg Spine; 2004 Jul; 1(1):108-15. PubMed ID: 15291030.
    Abstract:
    OBJECT: In bilateral cervical facet dislocation, biomechanical stabilities between anterior locking screw/plate fixation after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDFP) and posterior transpedicular screw/rod fixation after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDFTP) have not been compared using the human cadaver, although ACDFP has been performed frequently. In this study the stability of ACDFP, a posterior wiring procedure after ACDFP (ACDFPW), and ACDFTP for treatment of bilateral cervical facet dislocation were compared. METHODS: Spines (C3-T1) from 10 human cadavers were tested in the intact state, and then after ACDFP, ACDFPW, and ACDFTP were performed. Intervertebral motion was measured using a video-based motion capture system. The range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ) were compared for each loading mode to a maximum of 2 Nm. The ROM for spines treated with ACDFP was below that of the intact spine in all loading modes, with statistical significance in flexion and extension, but NZs were decreased in flexion and extension and slightly increased in bending and axial rotation; none of these showed statistical significance. The ACDFPW produced statistically significant additional stability in axial rotation ROM and in flexion NZ than ACDFP. The ACDFTP provided better stability than ACDFP in bending and axial rotation, and better stability than ACDFPW in bending for both ROM and NZ. There was no significant difference in extension with either ROM or NZ for the three fixation methods. CONCLUSIONS: The spines treated with ACDFTP demonstrated the most effective stabilization, followed by those treated with ACDFPW, and then ACDFP. The spines receiving ACDFP also revealed a higher stability than the intact spine in most loading modes; thus ACDFP can also provide a relatively effective stabilization in bilateral cervical facet dislocation, but with the aid of a brace.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]