FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Vet Surg / Ex vivo biomechanical comparison of pedicle screw and rod co...
Veterinary surgery : VS2025; 54(3); 610-620; doi: 10.1111/vsu.14226

Ex vivo biomechanical comparison of pedicle screw and rod constructs with and without interbody fusion devices for equine cervical vertebral stabilization.

Abstract: To determine the biomechanical properties of pedicle screw and rod (PSR) constructs alone and with an interbody fusion device (PSRIFD) for equine ventral cervical vertebral stabilization. Methods: Cadaveric ex vivo biomechanical analysis. Methods: A total of 14 (n = 14) adult equine cervical vertebral columns. Methods: Cervical vertebral columns were stabilized by PSR alone (n = 6) or PSRIFD (n = 5). Three columns were left unaltered as controls. Non-destructive biomechanical testing showed the kinematic range of motion (ROM), compliance, and neutral zone of each spinal unit in the three main kinematic directions (flexion-extension, lateral bending and axial rotation). Destructive testing was performed to identify mode of failure and stiffness in flexion. Non-destructive and destructive biomechanical data were compared by ANOVA between experimental groups. Results: In flexion-extension, PSR and PSRIFD had significantly lower ROM, compliance and neutral zone than controls (all p < .05). ROM, compliance and neutral zone were not different between PSR and PSRIFD groups. In axial rotation, the neutral zone of PSR was lower than PSRIFD (p = .013) and both were lower than controls (p < .0001 and p < .02, respectively). Stiffness and moment failure between PSR and PSRIFD groups were not different. All constructs failed through articular process joint dislocation, though the PSRIFD group also had ventral IFD migration. Conclusions: PSR and PSRIFD groups have similar biomechanical properties and modes of failure, though PSRIFD had higher catastrophic injury potential. Conclusions: These findings support that PSR constructs provide comparable biomechanical stability to PSRIFD, reducing time and potential complications associated with IFD placement.
© 2025 American College of Veterinary Surgeons.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-02-14 PubMed ID: 39953786DOI: 10.1111/vsu.14226Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Comparative Study

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

Overview

  • This research article examines the biomechanical stability of two cervical vertebral stabilization methods in horses: pedicle screw and rod (PSR) constructs alone versus PSR combined with interbody fusion devices (PSRIFD).
  • The goal was to compare their mechanical properties and failure modes to determine if adding the interbody fusion device provides additional stabilization benefits.

Introduction and Purpose

  • Cervical vertebral instability in horses can require surgical stabilization to restore function and reduce pain.
  • Two common methods for stabilization are:
    • Pedicle screw and rod (PSR) constructs, which fix spinal segments externally with screws and rods.
    • PSR combined with an interbody fusion device (PSRIFD), which also involves placing a fusion device between vertebral bodies to promote bone fusion and stability.
  • The study aimed to biomechanically compare these two techniques in equine cervical spines to evaluate differences in stability and failure patterns.

Methods

  • Used 14 adult equine cervical vertebral columns obtained post-mortem for ex vivo biomechanical testing.
  • Three groups were tested:
    • PSR alone (n=6): stabilization by pedicle screw and rod constructs.
    • PSRIFD (n=5): stabilization by PSR plus ventral interbody fusion device.
    • Controls (n=3): no stabilization applied, natural spine for baseline comparison.
  • Biomechanical tests were of two types:
    • Non-destructive testing: measured kinematic parameters including range of motion (ROM), compliance (ease of movement under load), and neutral zone (amount of movement before resistance is encountered) in three movement directions—flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation.
    • Destructive testing: applied increasing force until failure to measure stiffness in flexion and identify the mode of failure for each construct.
  • Statistical analysis was done using ANOVA to compare biomechanical outcomes among the groups.

Results

  • In flexion-extension movement:
    • Both PSR and PSRIFD groups showed significantly reduced ROM, compliance, and neutral zone compared to control spines, indicating increased stability (p < .05).
    • No significant difference between PSR and PSRIFD in these parameters, showing comparable stabilization capacity in this motion plane.
  • In axial rotation:
    • The neutral zone for PSR was significantly lower than for PSRIFD (p = .013), suggesting PSR alone allowed less initial movement.
    • Both PSR and PSRIFD had lower neutral zones than controls, indicating both enhance stability versus natural spine (p < .0001 and p < .02 respectively).
  • Destructive testing (flexion stiffness and failure moments):
    • No significant differences between PSR and PSRIFD groups in stiffness or force/moment required to cause failure.
    • Failure mode for all constructs was dislocation at the articular process joints.
    • PSRIFD constructs also showed ventral migration of the interbody fusion device, indicating a potential additional risk of catastrophic injury with this technique.

Conclusions and Implications

  • PSR constructs alone provide biomechanical stability comparable to PSR plus interbody fusion devices in equine cervical spines under the tested conditions.
  • Since there was no improvement in stabilization but an increased risk of ventral implant migration with PSRIFD, the simpler PSR method may be preferable.
  • Choosing PSR alone could reduce surgical time and risks related to placing interbody fusion devices, potentially minimizing complications during stabilization surgeries in horses.
  • Clinicians can consider these results when deciding stabilization approaches for equine cervical vertebral instability.

Cite This Article

APA
Pezzanite LM, Nelson BB, Downey AC, Gadomski B, McGilvray K, Baer K, Kappel SM, Nout-Lomas Y, Seim HB, Easley JT. (2025). Ex vivo biomechanical comparison of pedicle screw and rod constructs with and without interbody fusion devices for equine cervical vertebral stabilization. Vet Surg, 54(3), 610-620. https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.14226

Publication

Veterinary surgery : VS
ISSN: 1532-950X
NlmUniqueID: 8113214
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 54
Issue: 3
Pages: 610-620

Researcher Affiliations

Pezzanite, Lynn M
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Nelson, Brad B
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Downey, Amy C
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Gadomski, Ben
  • Department of Mechanical Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
McGilvray, Kirk
  • Department of Mechanical Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Baer, Kenzie
  • Department of Mechanical Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Kappel, Sarah M
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Nout-Lomas, Yvette
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Seim, Howard B
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Easley, Jeremiah T
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Horses / surgery
  • Biomechanical Phenomena
  • Cervical Vertebrae / surgery
  • Spinal Fusion / veterinary
  • Spinal Fusion / instrumentation
  • Spinal Fusion / methods
  • Cadaver
  • Pedicle Screws / veterinary
  • Range of Motion, Articular

Grant Funding

  • Preclinical Surgery Research Laboratory and Spine Research Center of Colorado State University

References

This article includes 36 references
  1. Moore B, Reed S, Robertson J. Surgical treatment of cervical stenotic myelopathy in horses: 73 cases (1983–1992). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1993;203(1):108‐112.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.1993.203.01.108google scholar: lookup
  2. Rooney JR. Disorders of the nervous system. In: Rooney JR, ed. Biomechanics of Lameness in Horses. 1st ed. Wilkins & Wilkins; 1969:219‐233.
  3. Wagner PC, Bagby GW, Grant BD, Gallina A, Ratzlaff M, Sande R. Surgical stabilization of the equine cervical spine. Vet Surg 2008;8(1):7‐12.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1532‐950x.1979.tb00596.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  4. Wagner PC, Grant BD, Bagby GW, Gallina AM, Sande RD, Ratzlaff M. Evaluation of cervical spinal fusion as a treatment in the equine “wobbler” syndrome. Vet Surg 1979;8(3):84‐88.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1532‐950x.1979.tb00614.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  5. Oswald J, Love S, Parkin T, Hughes K. Prevalence of cervical vertebral stenotic myelopathy in a population of thoroughbred horses. Vet Rec 2010;166(3):82‐83.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.b4781google scholar: lookup
  6. Hoffman CJ, Clark CK. Prognosis for racing with conservative management of cervical vertebral malformation in thoroughbreds: 103 cases (2002–2010). J Vet Intern Med 2013;27(2):317‐323.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.12053google scholar: lookup
  7. Levine J, Scrivani P, Divers T. Multicenter case‐control study of signalment, diagnostic features, and outcome associated with cervical vertebral malformation‐malarticulation in horses. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2010;237(7):812‐822.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.237.7.812google scholar: lookup
  8. Anderson DC. Wobbler surgery: what is the evidence?. Equine Vet Educ 2020;32(3):166‐168.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.12888google scholar: lookup
  9. Walmsley J. Surgical treatment of cervical spinal cord compression in horses: a European experience. Equine Vet Educ 2010;17(1):39‐43.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042‐3292.2005.tb0034.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  10. Grant BD, Barbee DD, Wagner PC. Long‐term results of surgery for equine cervical vertebral malformation. Proc Am Assoc Equine Pract 1985;31:91‐96.
  11. Aldrich E, Nout‐Lomas Y, Seim HB, Easley JT. Cervical stabilization with polyaxial pedicle screw and rod construct in horses: a proof‐of‐concept study. Vet Surg 2018;47(7):932‐941.
    doi: 10.1111/vsu.12938google scholar: lookup
  12. Pezzanite L, Easley J. Update on surgical treatment of wobblers. Vet Clin Equine 2019;35(2):299‐309.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2019.04.002google scholar: lookup
  13. Nixon AJ, Stashak TS, Ingram JT, Norrdin RW, Colter SB, Lebel JL. Dorsal laminectomy in the horse II: evaluation in the normal horse. Vet Surg 1983;12:177‐183.
  14. Nixon AJ, Stashak TS, Ingram JT. Dorsal laminectomy in the horse iii: results in horses with cervical vertebral malformation. Vet Surg 1983;12:184‐186.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1532‐950x.1983.tb00738.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  15. Reardon R, Kummer M, Lischer C. Ventral locking compression plate for treatment of cervical stenotic myelopathy in a 3‐month‐old warmblood foal. Vet Surg 2009;38(4):537‐542.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1532‐950x.2009.00523.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  16. Kühnle C, Fürst A, Ranninger E, Suárez Sánchez‐Andrade J, Kümmerle J. Outcome of ventral fusion of two or three cervical vertebrae with a locking compression plate for the treatment of cervical stenotic myelopathy in eight horses. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2018;31(5):356‐363.
    doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1666979google scholar: lookup
  17. Pezzanite LM, Easley JT, Bayless R. Outcomes after cervical vertebral interbody fusion using an interbody fusion device and polyaxial pedicle screw and rod construct in 10 horses (2015‐2019). Equine Vet J 2022;54(2):347‐358.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13449google scholar: lookup
  18. Reardon R, Bailey R, Walmsley J, Heller J, Lischer C. A pilot in vitro biomechanical comparison of locking compression plate fixation and kerf‐cut cylinder fixation for ventral fusion of fourth and fifth equine cervical vertebrae. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009;22(5):371‐379.
    doi: 10.3415/vcot-08-10-0101google scholar: lookup
  19. Rossignol F. Spinal fusion – plating. Proceedings: European College Veterinary Surgeons 33rd Annual Scientific Meeting European College of Veterinary Surgeons; 2024.
  20. Roy‐Camille R, Saillant G, Mazel CH. Plating of thoracic, thoracolumbar, and lumbar injuries with pedicle screw plates. Orthop Clin North Am 1986;17(1):147‐159.
  21. Lee GW, Son J‐H, Ahn M‐W, Kim H‐J, Yeom JS. The comparison of pedicle screw and cortical screw in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective randomized noninferiority trial. Spine J 2015;15(7):1519‐1526.
    doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.02.038google scholar: lookup
  22. Celestre PC, Montgomery SR, Kupperman AI, Aghdasi B, Inoue H, Wang JC. Lumbar clinical adjacent segment pathology: prediction for proximity levels. Spine 2014;39(2):172‐176.
    doi: 10.1097/brs.0000000000000094google scholar: lookup
  23. Laws CJ, Coughlin DG, Lotz JC, Serhan HA, Hu SS. Direct lateral approach to the lumbar fusion is a biomechanically equivalent alternative to the anterior approach: an in vitro study. Spine 2012;37(10):819‐825.
    doi: 10.1097/brs.0b013e31823551aagoogle scholar: lookup
  24. Cappuccino A, Cornwall GB, Turner AWL, Fogel GR, Duong HT, Kim KD. Biomechanical analysis and review of lateral lumbar fusion constructs. Spine 2010;35(26 Suppl):S361‐S367.
    doi: 10.1097/brs.0b013e318202308bgoogle scholar: lookup
  25. Patel VV, Wuthrich ZR, McGilvray KC. Cervical facet force analysis after disc replacement versus fusion. Clin Biomech 2017;44:52‐58.
    doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2017.03.007google scholar: lookup
  26. Gadomski BC, Labus KM, Puttlitz CM. Evaluation of lumbar spinal fusion utilizing recombinant human platelet derived growth factor‐B chain homodimer (rhPDGF‐BB) combined with a bovine collagen/β‐tricalcium phosphate (β‐TCP) matrix in an ovine model. JOR Spine 2021;4(3):e1166.
    doi: 10.1002/jsp2.1166google scholar: lookup
  27. Traynelis VC, Sherman J, Nottmeier E. Kinetic analysis of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion supplemented with transarticular facet screws: laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg Spine 2014;20(5):485‐491.
    doi: 10.3171/2014.1.spine13837google scholar: lookup
  28. McGilvray KC, Easley J, Seim HB. Bony ingrowth potential of 3D‐printed porous titanium alloy: a direct comparison of interbody cage materials in an in vivo ovine lumbar fusion model. Spine J 2018;18(7):1250‐1260.
    doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.02.018google scholar: lookup
  29. Nelson BB. Ex vivo analysis and preliminary clinical outcomes of a modified approach to ventral cervical stabilization in horses: an update on the polyaxial pedicle screw and rod technique. ECVS 33rd Annual Scientific Meeting July 4–6, Valencia, Spain 2024 .
  30. Dukti SA, Robertson JT, Bertone AL, Samii VF, Rosol TJ. Examination of an equine wobbler twelve years after surgical placement of a Bagby basket. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2004;17(2):107‐109.
    doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1636483google scholar: lookup
  31. Nout Y, Reed S. Cervical vertebral stenotic myelopathy. Equine Vet Educ 2003;15(4):212‐223.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3292.2003.tb00246.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  32. Panjabi MM, Krag M, Summers D, Videman T. Biomechanical time‐tolerance of fresh cadaveric human spine specimens. J Orthop Res 1985;3(3):292‐300.
    doi: 10.1002/jor.1100030305google scholar: lookup
  33. Glazer PA, Collihou O, Lotz JC, Bradford DS. Biomechanical analysis of lumbosacral fixation. Spine 1996;21(10):1211‐1222.
    doi: 10.1097/00007632-199605150-00015google scholar: lookup
  34. Linde F, Sorenson HC. The effect of different storage methods on the mechanical properties of trabecular bone. J Biomech 1993;26(10):1249‐1252.
    doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(93)90072-mgoogle scholar: lookup
  35. Callaghan JP, McGill SM. Frozen storage increases the ultimate compressive load of porcine vertebrae. J Orthop Res 1995;13(5):809‐812.
    doi: 10.1002/jor.1100130522google scholar: lookup
  36. Furst A, Meier D, Michel S, Schmidlin A, Held L, Laib A. Effect of age on bone mineral density and micro architecture in the radius and tibia of horses: an xtreme computed tomographic study. BMC Vet Res 2008;25(4):3.
    doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-4-3google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,002 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.