Subaxial Lateral Mass Prosthesis for Posterior Reconstruction of Cervical Spine

Abstract

Background Posterior facetectomy or lateral mass resection is often used during cervical dumbbell tumor resection, jeopardizing the stability of cervical spine. The space after resection of one or more lateral masses, if left unfilled might hamper bone fusion and structural support.

Purpose There were the aims to obtain the relevant morphometry of the lateral mass of the subaxial cervical spine (C3–C7) and to design a lateral mass prosthesis for the posterior reconstruction of the cervical spine.

Methods The computed tomography (CT) scans of healthy volunteers were obtained. RadiAnt DICOM Viewer software (Version 2020.1, Medixant, Poland) was used to measure the parameters of lateral mass, such as height, anteroposterior dimension (APD), mediolateral dimension (MLD), and facet joint angle. According to the parameters, a series of cervical lateral mass prostheses were designed. Cadaver experiment was conducted to demonstrate its feasibility.

Results Twenty-three volunteers with an average age of 30.1 ± 7.1 years were enrolled in this study. The height of the lateral mass was 14.1 mm on average. The facet joint angle, APD, and MLD of the lateral mass averaged 40.1 degrees, 11.2 mm, and 12.2 mm, respectively. With these key data, a lateral mass prosthesis consisting of a column and a posterior fixation plate was designed. The column has a 4.0-mm radius, 41-degree surface angle, and adjustable height of 13, 15, or 17 mm. In the cadaver experiment, the column could function as a supporting structure between adjacent facets, and it would not violate the exiting nerve root or the vertebral artery.

Conclusion This study provided a detailed morphology of the lateral mass of the subaxial cervical spine. A series of subaxial cervical lateral mass prostheses were designed awaiting further clinical application.

Keywords

cervical vertebral tumor - lateral mass prosthesis - lateral mass morphology - posterior reconstruction - cervical spine

^* Qiang Jian and Zhenlei Liu contributed equally to this study as co-first authors.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 08. September 2021

Angenommen: 27. Dezember 2021

Accepted Manuscript online:
13. Januar 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
12. Juli 2022

• References

• 1 Izzo R, Guarnieri G, Guglielmi G, Muto M. Biomechanics of the spine. Part I: spinal stability. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82 (01) 118-126
• 2 Pal GP, Sherk HH. The vertical stability of the cervical spine. Spine 1988; 13 (05) 447-449
• 3 Asazuma T, Toyama Y, Maruiwa H, Fujimura Y, Hirabayashi K. Surgical strategy for cervical dumbbell tumors based on a three-dimensional classification. Spine 2004; 29 (01) E10-E14
• 4 Jiang L, Lv Y, Liu XG. et al. Results of surgical treatment of cervical dumbbell tumors: surgical approach and development of an anatomic classification system. Spine 2009; 34 (12) 1307-1314
• 5 Kim JH, Han S, Kim JH, Kwon TH, Chung HS, Park YK. Surgical consideration of the intraspinal component in extradural dumbbell tumors. Surg Neurol 2008; 70 (01) 98-103
• 6 Kandziora F, Pflugmacher R, Scholz M. et al. Posterior stabilization of subaxial cervical spine trauma: indications and techniques. Injury 2005; 36 (Suppl. 02) B36-B43
• 7 Albrektsson T, Johansson C. Osteoinduction, osteoconduction and osseointegration. Eur Spine J 2001; 10 (Suppl. 02) S96-S101
• 8 Raynor RB, Pugh J, Shapiro I. Cervical facetectomy and its effect on spine strength. J Neurosurg 1985; 63 (02) 278-282
• 9 Zdeblick TA, Zou D, Warden KE, McCabe R, Kunz D, Vanderby R. Cervical stability after foraminotomy. A biomechanical in vitro analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992; 74 (01) 22-27
• 10 Voo LM, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Cusick JF. Finite element analysis of cervical facetectomy. Spine 1997; 22 (09) 964-969
• 11 Cusick JF, Yoganandan N, Pintar F, Myklebust J, Hussain H. Biomechanics of cervical spine facetectomy and fixation techniques. Spine 1988; 13 (07) 808-812
• 12 Wu Y, Tang H, Li Z, Zhang Q, Shi Z. Outcome of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in lumbar degenerative disease. J Clin Neurosci 2011; 18 (06) 780-783
• 13 Levin JM, Tanenbaum JE, Steinmetz MP, Mroz TE, Overley SC. Posterolateral fusion (PLF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J 2018; 18 (06) 1088-1098
• 14 Ji W, Cheng Y, Zhu Q. et al. Posterior unilateral exposure and stability reconstruction with pedicle and lamina screw fixation for the cervical dumbbell tumorectomy: a case report and biomechanical study. Eur Spine J 2021; 30 (02) 568-575
• 15 Clarke MJ, Zadnik PL, Groves ML. et al. Fusion following lateral mass reconstruction in the cervical spine. J Neurosurg Spine 2015; 22 (02) 139-150
• 16 Nishinome M, Iizuka H, Iizuka Y, Takagishi K. An analysis of the anatomic features of the cervical spine using computed tomography to select safer screw insertion techniques. Eur Spine J 2013; 22 (11) 2526-2531
• 17 Pesenti S, Lafage R, Lafage V, Panuel M, Blondel B, Jouve JL. Cervical facet orientation varies with age in children: an MRI study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100 (09) e57
• 18 Patil ND, Srivastava SK, Bhosale S, Purohit S. Computed tomography- and radiography-based morphometric analysis of the lateral mass of the subaxial cervical spine in the Indian population. Asian Spine J 2018; 12 (01) 18-28
• 19 Stemper BD, Marawar SV, Yoganandan N, Shender BS, Rao RD. Quantitative anatomy of subaxial cervical lateral mass: an analysis of safe screw lengths for Roy-Camille and magerl techniques. Spine 2008; 33 (08) 893-897
• 20 Rong X, Liu Z, Wang B, Chen H, Liu H. The facet orientation of the subaxial cervical spine and the implications for cervical movements and clinical conditions. Spine 2017; 42 (06) E320-E325
• 21 Abdullah KG, Steinmetz MP, Mroz TE. Morphometric and volumetric analysis of the lateral masses of the lower cervical spine. Spine 2009; 34 (14) 1476-1479
• 22 Turner CH. Three rules for bone adaptation to mechanical stimuli. Bone 1998; 23 (05) 399-407