Literature DB >> 19494747

Preventing distal pullout of posterior spine instrumentation in thoracic hyperkyphosis: a biomechanical analysis.

Edward Sun1, Ron Alkalay, David Vader, Brian D Snyder.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: An in vitro biomechanical study.
OBJECTIVE: Compare the mechanical behavior of 5 different constructs used to terminate dual-rod posterior spinal instrumentation in resisting forward flexion moment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Failure of the distal fixation construct can be a significant problem for patients undergoing surgical treatment for thoracic hyperkyphosis. We hypothesize that augmenting distal pedicle screws with infralaminar hooks or sublaminar cables significantly increases the strength and stiffness of these constructs.
METHODS: Thirty-seven thoracolumbar (T12 to L2) calf spines were implanted with 5 configurations of distal constructs: (1) infralaminar hooks, (2) sublaminar cables, (3) pedicle screws, (4) pedicle screws+infralaminar hooks, and (5) pedicle screws+sublaminar cables. Progressive bending moment was applied to each construct until failure. The mode of failure was noted and the construct's stiffness and failure load determined from the load-displacement curves.
RESULTS: Bone density and vertebral dimensions were equivalent among the groups (F=0.1 to 0.9, P>0.05). One-way analysis of covariance (adjusted for differences in density and vertebral dimension) demonstrated that all of the screw-constructs (screw, screw+hook, and screw+cable) exhibited significantly higher stiffness and ultimate failure loads compared with either sublaminar hook or cable alone (P<0.05). The screw+hook constructs (109+/-11 Nm/mm) were significantly stiffer than either screws alone (88+/-17 Nm/mm) or screw+cable (98+/-13 Nm/mm) constructs, P<0.05. Screw+cable construct exhibited significantly higher failure load (1336+/-328 N) compared with screw constructs (1102+/-256 N, P<0.05), whereas not statistically different from the screw+hook construct (1220+/-75 N). The cable and hook constructs failed by laminar fracture, screw construct failed in uniaxial shear (pullout), whereas the screws+(hooks or wires) failed by fracture of caudal vertebral body.
CONCLUSIONS: Posterior dual rod constructs fixed distally using pedicle screws were stiffer and stronger in resisting forward flexion compared with cables or hooks alone. Augmenting these screws with either infralaminar hooks or sublaminar cables provided additional resistance to failure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19494747     DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31816a6887

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech        ISSN: 1536-0652


  13 in total

1.  A case of pedicle screw loosening treated by modified transpedicular screw augmentation with polymethylmethacrylate.

Authors:  Suk-Hyung Kang; Kyoung-Tae Kim; Seung Won Park; Young-Baeg Kim
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2011-01-31

2.  Pullout strength after expandable polymethylmethacrylate transpedicular screw augmentation for pedicle screw loosening.

Authors:  Suk-Hyung Kang; Yong Jun Cho; Young-Baeg Kim; Seung Won Park
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2015-04-24

Review 3.  Spinal reconstruction with pedicle screw-based instrumentation and rhBMP-2 in patients with neurofibromatosis and severe dural ectasia and spinal deformity: report of two cases and a review of the literature.

Authors:  Samuel K Cho; Geoffrey E Stoker; Keith H Bridwell
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2011-08-03       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 4.  [Degeneration and osteoporosis of the spine. Is there a modified procedure?].

Authors:  K-S Delank; M Röllinghoff; K Eysel-Gosepath; R Sobottke; P Eysel
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  The reinforcement of a C2 laminar screw by a C2 laminar hook as an anchor of occipito-C2 fusion.

Authors:  Masashi Neo; Hiroyuki Yoshitomi; Mitsuru Takemoto; Masanori Izeki
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2013-10-27

6.  Thoracic hyperkyphosis: assessment of the distal fusion level.

Authors:  Kristopher Lundine; Peter Turner; Michael Johnson
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2012-06

7.  Reduction of intradiscal pressure by the use of polycarbonate-urethane rods as compared to titanium rods in posterior thoracolumbar spinal fixation.

Authors:  Eva Jacobs; Alex K Roth; Jacobus J Arts; Lodewijk W van Rhijn; Paul C Willems
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2017-08-21       Impact factor: 3.896

8.  Hybrid Instrumentation in Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Biomechanical Evaluation of Three Different Instrumentation Techniques.

Authors:  Peter Obid; Reza Danyali; Rebecca Kueny; Gerd Huber; Michael Reichl; Alexander Richter; Thomas Niemeyer; Michael Morlock; Klaus Püschel; Hüseyin Übeyli
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-02-01

9.  Biomechanical Analysis of the Proximal Adjacent Segment after Multilevel Instrumentation of the Thoracic Spine: Do Hooks Ease the Transition?

Authors:  Melodie F Metzger; Samuel T Robinson; Mark T Svet; John C Liu; Frank L Acosta
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2015-08-21

10.  The Mechanical Effect of Rod Contouring on Rod-Screw System Strength in Spine Fixation.

Authors:  Nihat Acar; Ahmet Karakasli; Ahmet A Karaarslan; Mehmet Hilal Ozcanhan; Fatih Ertem; Mehmet Erduran
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2016-09-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.