Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 26, 2026
Minimally Invasive Treatment for Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture Using Sagittal Alignment Screws and A Trauma Reduction Device
Published on: November 8, 2024
[Three-dimensional finite-element study on anterior transpedicular screw fixation system of the subaxial cervical
Jie Li1, Liujun Zhao, Feng Qi2
1Spine Surgery, Ningbo Medical Centre Li Huili Hospital, Ningbo 315040, China.
Objective:
To evaluate the biomechanical effects of the anterior cervical transpedicular-screw system (ACTPS), compared to the anterior cervical screw plate system (ACLP), in the subaxial cervical spine after 2-level corpectomy.
Methods:
A verified intact finite element subaxial cervical (C3-C7) model was established and analyzed by Mimics 10.0, Rapidform XOR3, Hypermesh 10.0, CATIA5V19, ANSYS 14.0 softwares based on the CT data (C1-T1) was collected from a 28 years old male volunteer. The axial force of 75 N and moment couple of 1N·m was loaded on the upper surface of C3, which made the model movement in flexion extension, lateral bending, rotating direction, respectively. Then, recorded the range of motion, and compared the results with the in vitro biomechanical experimental data to verify the effectiveness of the model. The ACTPS model and the ACLP model were analyzed using the finite element method. The range of motion at the operation segments (C4-C7), the range of motion at the adjacent segment (C3-C4) and stress distribution under flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation were calculated, and compared the range of motion with intact model.
Results:
There were 85,832 elements and 23,612 nodes in the intact model of subaxial cervical spine (C3-C7) in this experiment,and the range of motion of intact model validated with the reported cadaveric experimental data. In ACTPS group the stress was been well-distributed, but the stress concentrated on the interface between screw and the titanium plate in ACLP group. There were obvious differences of the maximum stress value between the two groups. The range of motion of fixed segments in ACTPS group was smaller than ACLP group, however adjacent segment range of motion showed no significant difference. Compared with the intact group, the range of motion in flexion extension, lateral flexion, rotation direction was decreased respectively about 25°, 20° and 8°, the range of motion at adjacent segment (C3-C4) was correspondingly compensated about 0.3°, 3° and 0.1°.
Conclusions:
ACTPS is better than ACLP in terms of biomechanical properties. It offers rigid stability, and may be more suitable for reconstruction stability of 2-level and more than 2 levels corpectomy in the subaxial cervical spine. Meanwhile, the risk of fracture of ACTPS system is lower than that of the ACLP system.
