Literature DB >> 17203270

A biomechanical analysis of the self-retaining pedicle hook device in posterior spinal fixation.

Wilbert van Laar1, Rinse J Meester, Theo H Smit, Barend J van Royen.   

Abstract

Regular hooks lack initial fixation to the spine during spinal deformity surgery. This runs the risk of posterior hook dislodgement during manipulation and correction of the spinal deformity, that may lead to loss of correction, hook migration, and post-operative junctional kyphosis. To prevent hook dislodgement during surgery, a self-retaining pedicle hook device (SPHD) is available that is made up of two counter-positioned hooks forming a monoblock posterior claw device. The initial segmental posterior fixation strength of a SPHD, however, is unknown. A biomechanical pull-out study of posterior segmental spinal fixation in a cadaver vertebral model was designed to investigate the axial pull-out strength for a SPHD, and compared to the pull-out strength of a pedicle screw. Ten porcine lumbar vertebral bodies were instrumented in pairs with two different instrumentation constructs after measuring the bone mineral density of each individual vertebra. The instrumentation constructs were extracted employing a material testing system using axial forces. The maximum pull-out forces were recorded at the time of the construct failure. Failure of the SPHD appeared in rotation and lateral displacement, without fracturing of the posterior structures. The average pull-out strength of the SPHD was 236 N versus 1,047 N in the pedicle screws (P < 0.001). The pull-out strength of the pedicle screws showed greater correlation with the BMC compared to the SPHD (P < 0.005). The SPHD showed to provide a significant inferior segmental fixation to the posterior spine in comparison to pedicle screw fixation. Despite the beneficial characteristics of the monoblock claw construct in a SPHD, that decreases the risk of posterior hook dislodgement during surgery compared to regular hooks, the SPHD does not improve the pull-out strength in such a way that it may provide a biomechanically solid alternative to pedicle screw fixation in the posterior spine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17203270      PMCID: PMC2200790          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-006-0288-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  25 in total

1.  The USS pedicle hook system: a morphometric analysis of its safety in the thoracic spine. Universal Spine System.

Authors:  G C Berlet; G Boubez; K R Gurr; S I Bailey
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  1999-06

2.  Axial and tangential fixation strength of pedicle screws versus hooks in the thoracic spine in relation to bone mineral density.

Authors:  Lars Hackenberg; Thomas Link; Ulf Liljenqvist
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Comparative analysis of pedicle screw and hook instrumentation in posterior correction and fusion of idiopathic thoracic scoliosis.

Authors:  U Liljenqvist; U Lepsien; L Hackenberg; T Niemeyer; H Halm
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2002-05-29       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Biomechanics of thoracolumbar spinal fixation. A review.

Authors:  M H Krag
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Thoracic pedicle screw fixation in spinal deformities: are they really safe?

Authors:  S I Suk; W J Kim; S M Lee; J H Kim; E R Chung
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-09-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Pullout strength of pedicle screws versus pedicle and laminar hooks in the thoracic spine.

Authors:  U Liljenqvist; L Hackenberg; T Link; H Halm
Journal:  Acta Orthop Belg       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 0.500

7.  Adolescent idiopathic thoracic scoliosis: apical correction with specialized pedicle hooks.

Authors:  V Arlet; P Papin; D Marchesi; M Aebi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Comparative morphometry of L4 vertebrae: comparison of large animal models for the human lumbar spine.

Authors:  Robert F McLain; Scott A Yerby; Timothy A Moseley
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Safety of supplemental endplate screws in thoracic pedicle hook fixation.

Authors:  Aaron A Cohen-Gadol; Mark B Dekutoski; Choll W Kim; Lynn M Quast; William E Krauss
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 5.115

10.  Correction of thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with segmental hooks, rods, and Wisconsin wires posteriorly: it's bad and obsolete, correct?

Authors:  Keith H Bridwell; Darrell S Hanson; John M Rhee; Lawrence G Lenke; Christine Baldus; Kathy Blanke
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-09-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  5 in total

1.  Use of the Universal Clamp for deformity correction and as an adjunct to fusion: preliminary results in scoliosis.

Authors:  Jean-Luc Jouve; Jérôme Sales de Gauzy; Benjamin Blondel; Franck Launay; Franck Accadbled; Gérard Bollini
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2009-11-28       Impact factor: 1.548

2.  Expert's comment concerning Grand Rounds case entitled "Type V osteogenesis imperfecta undergoing surgical correction for scoliosis" by M. Jones et al. (Eur Spine J; 2018: doi 10.1007/s00586-018-5465-8).

Authors:  C Birkenmaier
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Which factors prognosticate rotational instability following lumbar laminectomy?

Authors:  Arno Bisschop; Idsart Kingma; Ronald L A W Bleys; Albert J van der Veen; Cornelis P L Paul; Jaap H van Dieën; Barend J van Royen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Use of the Universal Clamp in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis for deformity correction and as an adjunct to fusion: 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Jérôme Sale de Gauzy; Jean-Luc Jouve; Franck Accadbled; Benjamin Blondel; Gérard Bollini
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 1.548

5.  Which factors prognosticate spinal instability following lumbar laminectomy?

Authors:  Arno Bisschop; Barend J van Royen; Margriet G Mullender; Cornelis P L Paul; Idsart Kingma; Timothy U Jiya; Albert J van der Veen; Jaap H van Dieën
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-03-17       Impact factor: 3.134

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.