Cervical articular process joint versus ventral cervical stabilization in horses: A biomechanical study

OBJECTIVE: To determine the biomechanical properties and modes of failure of a single level equine cervical spine immobilized with unilateral or bilateral articular process joint (APJ) stabilization, ventral cervical stabilization (VCS) and non-stabilized controls. STUDY DESIGN: Ex vivo experimental study. SAMPLE POPULATION: A total of 24 equine cadaver cervical spines. METHODS: Cervical spinal units (C4-C5) were randomly assigned to four groups (n = 6/group): unilateral APJ stabilization, bilateral APJ stabilization, VCS using pedicle screws and rod constructs, or non-stabilized. Non-destructive testing assessed kinematic range of motion (ROM), neutral zone, and stiffness in flexion-extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending. Specimens underwent four-point bending to failure (0.1 mm/s). Radiographs and visual inspection characterized failure mode. Groups were compared using one-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests. Significance was p < .05. RESULTS: Non-destructive testing showed unilateral and bilateral APJ constructs were stiffer in flexion-extension, axial rotation and lateral bending than non-stabilized (p < .05). In destructive testing, bilateral APJ stabilization was 2.5× stiffer than VCS, with similar failure moments. Construct stiffness was higher with bilateral APJ stabilization (27.89 ± 5.11 Nm/°) versus non-stabilized (6.92 ± 3.90 Nm/°, p = .0037), unilateral APJ (14.06 ± 2.94 Nm/°, p < .0001) and VCS (11.28 ± 3.01 Nm/°, p < .0001) groups. Failure typically occurred as cranial articular process fracture in both bilateral and unilateral APJ constructs. CONCLUSION: Bilateral APJ stabilization demonstrated greater stiffness than VCS with comparable failure moments. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Bilateral APJ stabilization, with its higher stiffness than VCS, may be an alternative strategy to achieve spinal fusion in horses while avoiding a ventral surgical approach. Future investigations and development of this technique in vivo are warranted before implementation in clinical cases.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Veterinary Surgery
Published
2026-10-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.70166
Primary Topic
Veterinary Orthopedics and Neurology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Cervical articular process joint versus ventral cervical stabilization in horses: A biomechanical study

Andres F. Bonilla, Machiel P. Ysebaert, Benjamin C. Gadomski, Jeremiah T. Easley et al.
Veterinary Surgery
Veterinary Orthopedics and Neurology
article

Cervical articular process joint versus ventral cervical stabilization in horses: A biomechanical study

Andres F. Bonilla, Machiel P. Ysebaert, Benjamin C. Gadomski, Jeremiah T. Easley, Brad B. Nelson, Ryan Foslien, Donovan M. David
article en

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the biomechanical properties and modes of failure of a single level equine cervical spine immobilized with unilateral or bilateral articular process joint (APJ) stabilization, ventral cervical stabilization (VCS) and non-stabilized controls. STUDY DESIGN: Ex vivo experimental study. SAMPLE POPULATION: A total of 24 equine cadaver cervical spines. METHODS: Cervical spinal units (C4-C5) were randomly assigned to four groups (n = 6/group): unilateral APJ stabilization, bilateral APJ stabilization, VCS using pedicle screws and rod constructs, or non-stabilized. Non-destructive testing assessed kinematic range of motion (ROM), neutral zone, and stiffness in flexion-extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending. Specimens underwent four-point bending to failure (0.1 mm/s). Radiographs and visual inspection characterized failure mode. Groups were compared using one-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests. Significance was p < .05. RESULTS: Non-destructive testing showed unilateral and bilateral APJ constructs were stiffer in flexion-extension, axial rotation and lateral bending than non-stabilized (p < .05). In destructive testing, bilateral APJ stabilization was 2.5× stiffer than VCS, with similar failure moments. Construct stiffness was higher with bilateral APJ stabilization (27.89 ± 5.11 Nm/°) versus non-stabilized (6.92 ± 3.90 Nm/°, p = .0037), unilateral APJ (14.06 ± 2.94 Nm/°, p < .0001) and VCS (11.28 ± 3.01 Nm/°, p < .0001) groups. Failure typically occurred as cranial articular process fracture in both bilateral and unilateral APJ constructs. CONCLUSION: Bilateral APJ stabilization demonstrated greater stiffness than VCS with comparable failure moments. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Bilateral APJ stabilization, with its higher stiffness than VCS, may be an alternative strategy to achieve spinal fusion in horses while avoiding a ventral surgical approach. Future investigations and development of this technique in vivo are warranted before implementation in clinical cases.

Veterinary Surgery
Colorado State University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Veterinary Orthopedics and Neurology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.