Kinematics of a Novel Canine Cervical Fusion System

Cervical spine reconstruction after total vertebrectomy using customized three-dimensional-printed implants in dogs

BACKGROUND

Sufficient surgical resection is necessary for effective tumor control, but is usually limited for vertebral tumors, especially in the cervical spine in small animal neurosurgery.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the primary stability and safety of customized three-dimensional (3D)-printed implants for cervical spine reconstruction after total vertebrectomy.

METHODS

Customized guides and implants were designed based on computed tomography (CT) imaging of five beagle cadavers and were 3D-printed. They were used to reconstruct C5 after total vertebrectomy. Postoperative CT images were obtained to evaluate the safety and accuracy of screw positioning. After harvesting 10 vertebral specimens (C3-C7) from intact (group A) and implanted spines (group B), implant stability was analyzed using a 4-point bending test comparing with groups A and C (reconstituted with plate and pins/polymethylmethacrylate after testing in Group A).

RESULTS

All customized implants were applied without gross neurovascular damage. In addition, 90% of the screws were in a safe area, with 7.5% in grade 1 (< 1.3 mm) and 2.5% in grade 2 (> 1.3 mm). The mean entry point and angular deviations were 0.81 ± 0.43 mm and 6.50 ± 5.11°, respectively. Groups B and C significantly decreased the range of motion (ROM) in C3-C7 compared with intact spines (p = 0.033, and 0.018). Both groups reduced overall ROM and neutral zone in C4-C6, but only group B showed significance (p = 0.005, and 0.027).

CONCLUSION

Customized 3D-printed implants could safely and accurately replace a cervical vertebra in dog cadavers while providing primary stability.

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

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.