Literature DB >> 20054957

Biomechanical testing of three newly developed transpedicular multisegmental fixation systems.

S Eggli1, F Schläpfer, M Angst, P Witschger, M Aebi.   

Abstract

A series of 216 biomechanical tests with 36 calf spines were performed to evaluate the rigidity of three newly developed prototypes of transpedicular fixation systems (Spine Fix, AO/ASIF prototype 1, AO/ASIF prototype 2) as compared to the already established Cotrel-Dubousset (CD) system. The Spine Fix system follows the same principle of spinal fixation as the CD system, while the two prototypes of the AO/ASIF group introduce a new concept of spinal reduction and fixation technique, using a three-dimensional adjustable fastening system of transpedicular screws to a longitudinal rod. This allows for correction and fixation of the instrumented vertebra segments in any position. During the tests the main point of interest was whether the newly gained degrees of freedom are associated with a loss of stiffness in the construct. Furthermore, the study evaluated whether transpedicular systems should be optimized from the technological point of view, or whether the stability and rigidity of these systems is determined mainly by the quality of pedicular anchorage. Load displacement was measured using a calf spine model with a precisely defined three-column lesion. Each implant was loaded up to 15 Nm in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. In all tests, the construct behaved in a highly linear fashion (r2> 0.94). By continously measuring the forces and moments at the cranial end of the spine specimen high accuracy of the tests was achieved (standard deviation: x-axis, 1.74%; y-axis, 1.36%; z-axis, 1.21%). In general, the stifness was found to be highest in lateral bending, followed by flexion/extension and axial rotation. Spine Fix was the stiffest implant in flexion/extension, AO/ASIF prototype 1 in lateral bending, and AO/ ASIF prototype 2 in rotation. In comparison to the CD system (stiffness of CD = 100%), differences in stiffness ranged from 77.3% prototype 1 to 140.8% Spine Fix in flexion, from 78.2% prototype 2b to 134.7% Spine Fix in extension, from 108.1% prototype 2b to 213.5% prototype 1 in lateral bending, and from 80.3% prototype 1 to 110.6% prototype 2 in axial rotation. The Spine Fix and prototype 2 systems showed equal or higher stiffness coefficients compared to the CD system. Prototype 1 is significantly more flexible, except in lateral bending, than the CD. From the technical point of view, the two AO/ ASIF prototypes allow the correction and fixation of an instrumented vertebra in any position. Prototype 2, despite the additional joint between transpedicular screws and longitudinal rods, shows stiffness comparable to that of the CD system.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 20054957     DOI: 10.1007/bf00300937

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


  24 in total

1.  The internal skeletal fixation system. A new treatment of thoracolumbar fractures and other spinal disorders.

Authors:  M Aebi; C Etter; T Kehl; J Thalgott
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1988-02       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Mechanical testing of spinal instrumentation.

Authors:  R B Ashman; J G Birch; L B Bone; J D Corin; J A Herring; C E Johnston; J F Ritterbush; J W Roach
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1988-02       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  A paradigm of delayed union and nonunion in the lumbosacral joint. A study of motion and bone grafting of the lumbosacral spine in sheep.

Authors:  D A Nagel; P C Kramers; B A Rahn; J Cordey; S M Perren
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Biomechanical comparisons of spinal fracture models and the stabilizing effects of posterior instrumentations.

Authors:  R L Ferguson; A F Tencer; P Woodard; B L Allen
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1988-05       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Internal fixation in lumbosacral spine fusion. A biomechanical and clinical study.

Authors:  M D Kornblatt; M P Casey; R R Jacobs
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1986-02       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Experimental evaluation of Harrington rod fixation supplemented with sublaminar wires in stabilizing thoracolumbar fracture-dislocations.

Authors:  G Munson; C Satterlee; S Hammond; R Betten; R W Gaines
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  A biomechanical analysis of the clinical stability of the lumbar and lumbosacral spine.

Authors:  I Posner; A A White; W T Edwards; W C Hayes
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1982 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  The three column spine and its significance in the classification of acute thoracolumbar spinal injuries.

Authors:  F Denis
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1983 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Laboratory testing of segmental spinal instrumentation versus traditional Harrington instrumentation for scoliosis treatment.

Authors:  D R Wenger; J J Carollo; J A Wilkerson; K Wauters; J A Herring
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1982 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  [A new technic for segmental spinal osteosynthesis using the posterior approach].

Authors:  Y Cotrel; J Dubousset
Journal:  Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot       Date:  1984
View more
  9 in total

1.  Load-displacement properties of the thoracolumbar calf spine: experimental results and comparison to known human data.

Authors:  H J Wilke; S T Krischak; K H Wenger; L E Claes
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Pedicle screw instrumentation and spinal deformities: have we gone too far?

Authors:  John McCormick; Max Aebi; David Toby; Vincent Arlet
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-04-25       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  [Mid-term outcome after fusion due to isthmic spondylolysis].

Authors:  Gerd M Ivanic; Peter T Pink; Sven Ziegler; Bernd Harter; Frank Schneider; Florian Plattner; Nikolaus C Homann
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2007-01

4.  [Indications for deformity correction with minimally invasive spondylodesis].

Authors:  C Wimmer; T Pfandlsteiner
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 5.  [Operative treatment of scoliosis : Preoperative planning, intraoperative monitoring, and postoperative management].

Authors:  C Wimmer; A E Siam; T Pfandlsteiner
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  New means in spinal pedicle hook fixation. A biomechanical evaluation.

Authors:  U Berlemann; P Cripton; L P Nolte; K Lippuner; F Schläpfer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  A universal spine tester for in vitro experiments with muscle force simulation.

Authors:  H J Wilke; L Claes; H Schmitt; S Wolf
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Morphometrical dimensions of the sheep thoracolumbar vertebrae as seen on digitised CT images.

Authors:  Mahmoud Mageed; Dagmar Berner; Henriette Jülke; Christian Hohaus; Walter Brehm; Kerstin Gerlach
Journal:  Lab Anim Res       Date:  2013-09-27

9.  Effectiveness of posterior structures in the development of proximal junctional kyphosis following posterior instrumentation: A biomechanical study in a sheep spine model.

Authors:  Murat Korkmaz; Turgut Akgul; Kerim Sariyilmaz; Okan Ozkunt; Fatih Dikici; Onder Yazicioglu
Journal:  Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc       Date:  2019-01-30       Impact factor: 1.511

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.