In vitro biomechanical evaluation of a monocoque plate-spacer construct for cervical open-door laminoplasty

PLoS One. 2018 Oct 18;13(10):e0204147. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204147. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate biomechanical differences between two surgical procedures for cervical open-door laminoplasty using human cadaveric spines.

Methods: Twenty-four cervical vertebrae (C4-C6) from eight fresh-frozen human cervical spines were subjected to mechanical testing after being instrumented for open-door laminoplasty using a newly designed plate-spacer device with a monocoque structure (plate-spacer group; n = 12) or by conventional miniplate-alone fixation (miniplate group; n = 12). Cantilever bending testing was performed by applying a compressive load in the cranio-caudal direction to the base of the spinous process of the reconstructed laminar arch constructs until failure and strength and stiffness of the laminar arch were determined. The results are presented as mean ± standard deviation.

Results: The plate-spacer group was approximately twice as strong as the miniplate group (27.6 ± 16.5 N vs. 13.5 ± 7.3 N, p < 0.05). Stiffness in the plate-spacer group exhibited the same trend (19.6 ± 9.3 N/mm vs. miniplate group: 11.4 ± 6.9 N/mm, p < 0.05).

Conclusion: The fixation with the monocoque plate-spacer construct for open-door laminoplasty provided higher structural properties when compared against the plate-alone fixation. The spacer in the plate-spacer construct appears to contribute by preventing large deformations of the laminar arch caused by bending in cranio-caudal direction. Future studies will be required to investigate stress/strain distribution in the laminar arch constructs.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Biomechanical Phenomena
  • Bone Plates
  • Cadaver
  • Cervical Vertebrae / surgery*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Laminoplasty / instrumentation*
  • Male
  • Middle Aged

Associated data

  • figshare/10.6084/m9.figshare.6941015

Grants and funding

This study was supported by research funding from Ammtec Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) and Orthopedic Biomechanics Fund at Rush University Medical Center. Ammtec Inc. provided devices used for the study and costs for the cadaveric specimens, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional external funding received for this study.