Biomechanical Differences Between Transfacet and Lateral Mass Screw-Rod Constructs for Multilevel Posterior Cervical Spine Stabilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical investigation using human cadaveric cervical spines. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate differences in biomechanical stability between typical lateral mass screw + rod constructs compared to transfacet screw fixation with and without rods. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lateral mass screw + rod constructs have reported efficacious arthrodesis rates/quality but risk damaging the lateral neurovascular structures. Transfacet screw fixation has been studied in the lumbar spine, but little data exists regarding its potential utility in the cervical spine. METHODS: Sixteen human cadaveric cervical spines were stripped of soft tissue leaving the occiput and ligamentous structures intact. Spines were randomized to lateral mass or transfacet groups (n = 8/group). Spines were prepared in typical surgical fashion and instrumented with the appropriate devices. In the case of the transfacet constructs, the occiput was left intact to simulate the potential surgical difficulty of screw insertion. The transfacet screw group was initially instrumented with rods. Once instrumented (C3-C6) for each group, spines were further dissected to isolate the instrumented levels. End vertebral bodies were rigidly fixed and constructs biomechanically tested in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial torsion between +/-2 Nm. After testing for the transfacet screw + rod group, rods were removed and spines retested. All instrumentation was then removed and spines tested in their destabilized state as would occur with surgical preparation. Stiffness data were calculated for each test direction for all groups. Raw and normalized data were each compared across techniques with a 1-way ANOVA (P < 0.05). RESULTS: The transfacet screw groups (with and without rods) were found to have statistically similar biomechanical stability to lateral mass screw + rod constructs for each test direction. CONCLUSION: Transfacet screws (without rods) were found to have similar biomechanical stability compared to typical lateral mass screw + rod constructs. However, transfacet fixation eliminates the risk to the neurovascular structures and lowers the overall implant profile.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".