• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.37 no.2
• /
• pp.89-95
• /
• 2005

Objective: The biomechanical stabilities between the anterior plate fixation after anterior discectomy and fusion (ACDFP) and the posterior transpedicular fixation after ACDF(ACDFTP) have not been compared using human cadaver in bilateral cervical facet dislocation. The purpose of this study is to compare the stability of ACDFP, a posterior wiring procedure after ACDFP(ACDFPW), and ACDFTP for treatment of bilateral cervical facet dislocation. Methods: Ten human spines (C3-T1) were tested in the following sequence: the intact state, after ACDFP(Group 1), ACDFPW(Group 2), and ACDFTP(Group 3). Intervertebral motions were measured by 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 2.0Nm. Results: ROMs for Group 1 were 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 without significances. Group 2 produced additional stability in axial rotation of ROM and in flexion of NZ than Group 1 with significance. Group 3 provided better stability than Group 1 in bending and axial rotation, and better stability than Group 2 in bending of both ROM and NZ. There was no significant difference in extension modes for the three Groups. Conclusion: ACDFTP(Group 3) demonstrates the most effective stabilization followed by ACDFPW(Group 2), and ACDFP(Group 1). ACDFP provides sufficient strength in most loading modes, ACDFP can provide an effective stabilization for bilateral cervical facet dislocation with a brace.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.30 no.12
• /
• pp.1388-1393
• /
• 2001

Objective : In the retrospective analyzing 19 consecutive patients with subaxial cervical spine(C3~T1) injury treated by posterior cervical fixation and fusion, clinical manifestation, radiologic finding, operative technique, and postoperative results following 6 months were analyzed. Materials and Methods : Most common fracture level was C4-5, mean age 41, and male to female ratio 13 : 6. The most common cause of injury was motor vehicle accident(17 cases). In 19 cervical procedures, interspinous triple wiring was done in 14 cases, lateral mass plating in 5 cases, and additional anterior fusion in 2 cases. Results : Twelve weeks after operation, all cases were reviewed by plain cervical radiogram. In 17 cases that treated by posterior fusion only, 14 cases(81%) had kyphotic angle change less than $5^{\circ}$, 2 cases(12%) $5-20^{\circ}$, and 1 case(6%) more than $20^{\circ}$. Overall fusion rate was 88%, and there was no significant difference of bone fusion rate between autogenous bone graft and allogenous bone graft. Conclusion : In the case of severe posterior column injury or displacement, posterior approach seems superior to anterior approach, but in the case of combined anterior column injury, anterior approach is considered necessary. In this study, posterior fixation and fusion might be acceptable procedure for subaxial cervical fracture and dislocation, owing to its high fusion rate, low kyphotic angulation and low operation related complication rate.