Literature DB >> 10703103

Spinous process strength.

D E Shepherd1, J C Leahy, K J Mathias, S J Wilkinson, D W Hukins.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Mechanical testing of cadaveric lumbar spines and dual energy radiograph absorptiometry scanning were performed.
OBJECTIVES: To devise a technique to measure the strength of lumbar spinous processes and to determine the bone mineral density of the vertebrae used. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The spinous process has been identified as the weakest part of the anatomy to which a flexible fixation device can be attached. It was unknown if the spinous processes could withstand the forces applied by the device.
METHODS: A hook was fitted to the spinous process of 32 lumbar vertebrae. A custom-built rig was designed to secure a vertebra to a materials testing machine. A loop of cord was passed over a bar mounted on the crosshead of the machine and around the two bollards of the hook. As the crosshead was raised, a tension was applied to the cord. Each vertebra was tested to failure. The bone mineral density of each vertebra was then measured using dual energy radiograph absorptiometry.
RESULTS: Failure of the specimens occurred by failure of the spinous process, pedicles, or vertebral body. The logarithm (base 10) of the load (N) at which failure occurred was 2.53 +/- 0.3, which corresponded to a mean failure load of 339 N. The bone mineral density of each vertebral body varied between 0.263 and 0.997 g/cm2. A significant linear correlation was found between bone strength and bone mineral density (P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Specimens with a bone mineral density in the range of 0.263-0.997 g/cm2 failed at a mean load of 339 N when the load was applied through the spinous process hook of a flexible fixation device.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10703103     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200002010-00010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  15 in total

Review 1.  Role of lumbar interspinous distraction on the neural elements.

Authors:  Alex Alfieri; Roberto Gazzeri; Julian Prell; Christian Scheller; Jens Rachinger; Christian Strauss; Andreas Schwarz
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 3.042

2.  [Long-term results, status of studies and differential indication regarding the DIAM implant].

Authors:  F A Krappel
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Computed tomography measurements of the lumbar spinous processes and interspinous space.

Authors:  Rolf Sobottke; Timmo Koy; Marc Röllinghoff; Jan Siewe; Thomas Kreitz; Daniel Müller; Christopher Bangard; Peer Eysel
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 1.246

4.  Accuracy of DXA scanning of the thoracic spine: cadaveric studies comparing BMC, areal BMD and geometric estimates of volumetric BMD against ash weight and CT measures of bone volume.

Authors:  Meena M Sran; Karim M Khan; Kathy Keiver; Jason B Chew; Heather A McKay; Thomas R Oxland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-12-23       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Posterior vertebral arch cement augmentation (spinoplasty) to prevent fracture of spinous processes after interspinous spacer implant.

Authors:  G Bonaldi; G Bertolini; A Marrocu; A Cianfoni
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2011-12-22       Impact factor: 3.825

6.  A review of the design process for implantable orthopedic medical devices.

Authors:  G A Aitchison; D W L Hukins; J J Parry; D E T Shepherd; S G Trotman
Journal:  Open Biomed Eng J       Date:  2009-07-02

7.  Clinical outcomes of a polyaxial interspinous fusion system.

Authors:  Joseph A Sclafani; Kevin Liang; Donna D Ohnmeiss; Charles Gordon
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2014-12-01

8.  Tadpole system as new lumbar spinal instrumentation.

Authors:  Yuichi Kasai; Tadashi Inaba; Koji Akeda; Atsumasa Uchida
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2008-09-12       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 9.  Controversies about interspinous process devices in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Roberto Gazzeri; Marcelo Galarza; Alex Alfieri
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-04-13       Impact factor: 3.411

10.  Long-term result of posterolateral fusion of the lumbar spine using the Tadpole system.

Authors:  Kriangkrai Wittayapairoj; Zhuo Wang; Toshihiko Sakakibara; Yuichi Kasai
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 2.359

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.