Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2022; 35(05): 289-297
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1744490
Original Research

Comparison of Cervical Stabilization with Transpedicular Pins and Polymethylmethacrylate versus Transvertebral Body Polyaxial Screws with or without an Interbody Distractor in Dogs

Authors

  • Paulo V.T. Marinho

    1   Department of Veterinary Medicine, Federal Institute of Education, Science, and Technology of Southern Minas Gerais, IFSULDEMINAS, Muzambinho, MG, Brazil

  • Cassio R.A. Ferrigno

    2   Small Animal Clinical Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, United States

  • Ronaldo C. da Costa

    3   Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States

  • César A.M. Pereira

    4   Biomechanics Laboratory LIM-41/HC-FMUSP, Hospital das Clínicas, College of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

  • Mário A.F. Rego

    5   Department of Surgery, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

  • Thales Bregadioli

    5   Department of Surgery, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

  • Fernanda Paes

    5   Department of Surgery, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

Funding None.
Further Information
Also available at
  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The main aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of caudal cervical vertebral stabilization using bicortical transpedicular pins with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) versus transvertebral body polyaxial screws and connecting rods with or without an interbody distractor.

Study Design Ten canine cervical vertebral columns (C2–T3) were used. Four models (intact, transvertebral body polyaxial screw with interbody distractor [polyaxial + distractor], transvertebral body polyaxial screw without interbody distractor [polyaxial − distractor] and bicortical transpedicular pins/polymethylmethacrylate [pin-PMMA]) were applied to C6–7 sequentially on the same specimens. Angular range of motion (AROM) in the form of flexion and extension was measured at C4–5, C5–6 and C6–7 in all groups.

Results Treated vertebral specimens had significantly less AROM than unaltered specimens. There was no significant difference in AROM between the experimental groups at C6 and C7. Angular range of motion ratio in flexion–extension was 80.8, 72.7 and 78.3% for polyaxial + distractor, polyaxial − distractor and pin-PMMA groups, respectively, which were less than the intact group. There was no significant increase in the range of motion of the adjacent vertebrae after stabilization.

Conclusion Stabilization obtained with transvertebral body polyaxial screws was comparable to that from the well-established bicortical pins/PMMA construct. Association of an intervertebral distractor did not change AROM of the polyaxial screw constructs.

Keywords

vertebral fusion - bone screws - biomechanics - cervical vertebral column - dogs

Authors' Contributions

P.V.T.M., C.R.A.F., R.C.d.C., C.A.M.P. conceptualized the study. P.V.T.M., C.R.A.F., R.C.d.C., C.A.M.P., A.M.F.R., T.B., F.P. designed the study. P.V.T.M., C.A.M.P., T.B., and F.P. acquired the data. P.V.T.M., C.R.A.F., R.C.d.C., and M.A.F.R. were involved in data analysis and interpretation.


P.V.T.M., C.R.A.F., R.C.d.C., C.A.M.P., A.M.F.R., and T.B. drafted or revised the manuscript.


P.V.T.M., C.R.A.F., R.C.d.C., C.A.M.P., A.M.F.R., T.B., and F.P. approved the manuscript. All authors were publicly accountable for relevant content.




Publication History

Received: 21 June 2021

Accepted: 11 February 2022

Article published online:
30 June 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany