| Literature DB >> 24974189 |
Shayan Fakurnejad1, Justin K Scheer1, Avinash G Patwardhan2, Robert M Havey2, Leonard I Voronov2, Zachary A Smith3.
Abstract
Much controversy exists regarding the mechanism of burst fracture (BF) induction and the proper techniques to treat such fractures. As such, there is a great need for validated preclinical models in which to study these injuries. In this study, an electronic search of the PubMed database (MEDLINE) was performed and the results were filtered to obtain only studies with a biomechanical focus. Forty five biomechanical studies were obtained, from which four distinct methods of injury induction were identified. Twenty one (46.7%) involved clinically relevant techniques for treating BF, involving anterior, posterior, circumferential, or a combination of approaches. Fifteen (71.4%) of the treatment studies used unstable spine specimens that do not fit the classical characteristics of BF. Given the consistent use of BF models that do not adhere to classical definitions, the clinical value of ex vivo induction is uncertain.Entities:
Keywords: Biomechanics; Burst fracture; Spine; Thoracolumbar
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24974189 DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2014.05.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Neurosci ISSN: 0967-5868 Impact factor: 1.961