Biomechanical evaluation of four different posterior screw and rod fixation techniques for the treatment of the odontoid fractures.

Problems that screw cannot be inserted may occur in screw-rod fixation techniques such as Harms technique. We compared the biomechanical stability imparted to the C-2 vertebrae by four designed posterior screw and rod fixation techniques for the management of odontoid fractures. A three-dimensional finite element model of the odontoid fracture was established by subtracting several unit structures from the normal model from a healthy male volunteer. 4 different fixation techniques, shown as follows: ① C-1 lateral mass and C-2 pedicle screw fixation (Harms technique); ② C-1 lateral mass and unilateral C-2 pedicle screw fixation combined with ipsilateral laminar screw fixation; ③ Unilateral C-1lateral mass combined with ipsilateral C-1 posterior arch, and C-2 pedicle screw fixation; and ④ Unilateral C1 lateral mass screw connected with bilateral C2 pedicle screw fixation was performed on the odontoid fracture model. The model was validated for axial rotation, flexion, extension, lateral bending, and tension for 1.5 Nm. Changes in motion in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation were calculated. The finite element model of the odontoid fracture was established in this paper. All of the four screw-rod techniques significantly decreased motion in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, as compared with the destabilized odontoid fracture complex (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in stability among the four screw techniques. We concluded that the first three fixation techniques are recommended to be used as surgical intervention for odontoid fracture, while the last can be used as supplementary for the former three methods.