Literature DB >> 15014273

Biomechanical comparison of anterolateral plate, lateral plate, and pedicle screws-rods for enhancing anterolateral lumbar interbody cage stabilization.

Hakan Bozkus1, Robert H Chamberlain, Luis E Perez Garza, Neil R Crawford, Curtis A Dickman.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A repeated measures in vitro flexibility experiment was performed in calf spines.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the biomechanical differences among three techniques for augmenting stability of an anterolateral lumbar threaded interbody cage.
BACKGROUND: Stand-alone interbody cages are known to inadequately stabilize the spine. Surgeons often add supplementary instrumentation for a more stable construct.
METHODS: Six L2-L5 calf spines (L3-L4 level instrumented) were tested: 1) intact; 2) with a single anterolateral interbody cage; 3) with cage plus anterolateral plating; 4) with cage plus lateral plating; and 5) with cage plus pedicle screw fixation. Specimens were loaded in each anatomic plane quasistatically (maximum 5.0 Nm). Angular motion was measured stereophotogrammetrically.
RESULTS: The stand-alone interbody cage allowed significantly less range of motion than normal during all loading modes except axial rotation. Addition of pedicle screws-rods, anterolateral plate, or lateral plate significantly further reduced range of motion in all planes. Pedicle screws slightly outperformed the anterolateral plate during extension and lateral bending and slightly outperformed the lateral plate during flexion, extension, and left axial rotation (range of motion differences <0.65 degrees, P < 0.05). The anterolateral plate outperformed the lateral plate during flexion and extension, whereas the lateral plate outperformed the anterolateral plate during lateral bending (range of motion difference <0.57 degrees, P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Anterolateral or lateral lumbar plating increases stability significantly compared to stand-alone interbody cage fixation. These findings support anterolateral or lateral plate fixation as a potential clinical alternative to pedicle screws-rods in this role and may obviate the need for combined anterior and posterior approaches when spinal instability exists.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15014273     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000115126.13081.7d

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


  6 in total

1.  Two column lesions in the thoracolumbar junction: anterior, posterior or combined approach? A comparative biomechanical in vitro investigation.

Authors:  Tibor Bence; Ulrich Schreiber; Thomas Grupp; Erwin Steinhauser; Wolfram Mittelmeier
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-08-30       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Biomechanical comparison of two different concepts for stand alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Philipp Schleicher; R Gerlach; B Schär; C M J Cain; W Achatz; R Pflugmacher; N P Haas; F Kandziora
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-10-08       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Relation between radiological assessment and biomechanical stability of lumbar interbody fusion in a large animal model.

Authors:  R J Kroeze; A J van der Veen; B J van Royen; R A Bank; M N Helder; T H Smit
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Biomechanical evaluation of a biomimetic spinal construct.

Authors:  Tian Wang; Jonathon R Ball; Mattew H Pelletier; William R Walsh
Journal:  J Exp Orthop       Date:  2014-06-26

5.  Adult Degenerative Scoliosis with Spinal Stenosis Treated with Stand-Alone Cage via an Extreme Lateral Transpsoas Approach; a Case Report and Literature Review.

Authors:  Arvind von Keudell; Marjan Alimi; Harry Gebhard; Roger Härtl
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2015-04

6.  Biomechanical comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion: stand-alone interbody cage versus interbody cage with pedicle screw fixation -- a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Kyung-Chul Choi; Kyeong-Sik Ryu; Sang-Ho Lee; Yeong Hyeon Kim; Sung Jae Lee; Chun-Kun Park
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2013-07-26       Impact factor: 2.362

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.