Biomechanical properties of different anterior and posterior techniques for atlantoaxial fixation: a finite element analysis

BackgroundMany techniques for atlantoaxial fixation have been developed. However, the biomechanical differences among various atlantoaxial fixation methods remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical influence of anterior and posterior atlantoaxial fixation techniques on fixed and nonfixed segments.MethodsAn occiput-C7 cervical finite element model was used to construct 6 surgical models including a Harms plate, a transoral atlantoaxial reduction plate (TARP), an anterior transarticular screw (ATS), a Magerl screw, a posterior screw-plate, and a screw-rod system. Range of motion (ROM), facet joint force (FJF), disc stress, screw stress, and bone-screw interface stress were calculated.ResultsThe C1/2 ROMs were relatively small in the ATS and Magerl screw models under all loading directions except for extension (0.1 & DEG;-1.0 & DEG;). The posterior screw-plate system and screw-rod system generated greater stresses on the screws (77.6-1018.1 MPa) and bone-screw interfaces (58.3-499.0 MPa). The Harms plate and TARP models had relatively small ROMs (3.2 & DEG;-17.6 & DEG;), disc stress (1.3-7.6 MPa), and FJF (3.3-106.8 N) at the nonfixed segments. Changes in disc stress and FJF of the cervical segments were not consistent with changes in ROM.ConclusionsATS and Magerl screws may provide good atlantoaxial stability. The posterior screw-rod system and screw-plate system may have higher risks of screw loosening and breakage. The Harms plate and TARP model may more effectively relieve nonfixed segment degeneration than other techniques. The C0/1 or C2/3 segment may not be more susceptible to degeneration than other nonfixed segments after C1/2 fixation.