A biomechanical comparison of the Rogers interspinous and the Lovely-Carl tension band wiring techniques for fixation of the cervical spine

• Published in: Journal of neurosurgery Vol. 93; no. 1 Suppl; p. 109
• Main Authors: Brasil, A V, Coehlo, D G, Filho, T E, Braga, F M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.07.2000
• Subjects: Animals; Biomechanical Phenomena; Bone Wires; Cattle; Cervical Vertebrae - injuries; Cervical Vertebrae - physiopathology; Cervical Vertebrae - surgery; Elasticity; Evaluation Studies as Topic; Follow-Up Studies; Internal Fixators; Intervertebral Disc - injuries; Intervertebral Disc - physiopathology; Intervertebral Disc - surgery; Longitudinal Ligaments - injuries; Longitudinal Ligaments - physiopathology; Longitudinal Ligaments - surgery; Pliability; Range of Motion, Articular - physiology; Rotation; Statistics, Nonparametric
• ISSN: 0022-3085
• DOI: 10.3171/spi.2000.93.1.0109

The authors conducted a biomechanical study in which they compared the uses of the Rogers interspinous and the Lovely-Carl tension band wiring techniques for internal fixation of the cervical spine. An extensive biomechanical evaluation (stiffness in positive and negative rotations around the x, y, and z axes; range of motion in flexion-extension, bilateral axial rotation, and bilateral bending; and neutral zone in flexion-extension, bilateral axial rotation, and lateral bending to the right and to the left) was performed in two groups of intact calf cervical spines. After these initial tests, all specimens were subjected to a distractive flexion Stage 3 ligamentous lesion. Group 1 specimens then underwent surgical fixation by the Rogers technique, and Group 2 specimens underwent surgery by using the Lovely-Carl technique. After fixation, specimens were again submitted to the same biomechanical evaluation. The percentage increase or decrease between the pre- and postoperative parameters was calculated. These values were considered quantitative indicators of the efficacy of the techniques, and the efficacy of the two techniques was compared. Analysis of the findings demonstrated that in the spines treated with the Lovely-Carl technique less restriction of movement was produced without affecting stiffness, compared with those treated with the Rogers technique, thus making the Lovely-Carl technique clinically less useful.