Literature DB >> 35383602

Mechanical Analysis of 3 Posterior Fusion Assemblies Intended to Cross the Cervicothoracic Junction.

John T Sherrill1, David B Bumpass1, Erin M Mannen1,2.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: This was a biomechanical comparison study.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the mechanical properties of 3 posterior spinal fusion assemblies commonly used to cross the cervicothoracic junction. SUMMARY OF
BACKGROUND: When posterior cervical fusions are extended into the thoracic spine, an instrumentation transition is often utilized. The cervical rod (3.5 mm) can continue using thoracic screws designed to accept the cervical rods. Alternatively, traditional thoracic screws may be used to accept thoracic rods (5.5 mm). This requires the use of a 3.5-5.5 mm transition rod or a separate 5.5 mm rod and a connector to fix the 3.5 and 5.5 mm rod together. Fusion success depends on the immobilization of vertebrae, yet the mechanics provided by these different assemblies are unknown.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three titanium alloy posterior fusion assemblies intended to cross the cervicothoracic junction underwent static compressive bending, tensile bending, and torsion as described in ASTM F1717 to a torque of 2.5 Nm. Five samples of each assembly were attached to ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene blocks via multiaxial screws for testing. Force and displacement were recorded, and the stiffness of each construct was calculated.
RESULTS: The 2 assemblies that included a 5.5 mm rod were found to be stiffer and have less range of motion than the assembly that used only 3.5 mm rods.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that incorporating a 5.5 mm rod in a fusion assembly adds significant stiffness to the construct. When the stability of a fusion is of heightened concern, as demonstrated by the ASTM F1717 vertebrectomy (worst-case scenario) model, including 5.5 mm rods may increase fusion success rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35383602      PMCID: PMC9272685          DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001317

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Spine Surg        ISSN: 2380-0186            Impact factor:   1.723


  9 in total

Review 1.  The cervicothoracic junction.

Authors:  Vincent Y Wang; Dean Chou
Journal:  Neurosurg Clin N Am       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.509

2.  Biomechanical Evaluation of Cervicothoracic Junction Fusion Constructs.

Authors:  Jakub Godzik; Jonathan F Dalton; Eduardo Martinez-Del-Campo; Anna G U S Newcomb; Felix Dominguez; Phillip M Reyes; Nicholas Theodore; Brian P Kelly; Neil R Crawford
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2018-12-20       Impact factor: 2.104

3.  Spinal segment range of motion as a function of in vitro test conditions: effects of exposure period, accumulated cycles, angular-deformation rate, and moisture condition.

Authors:  H J Wilke; B Jungkunz; K Wenger; L E Claes
Journal:  Anat Rec       Date:  1998-05

4.  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

5.  Spinal disorders at the cervicothoracic junction.

Authors:  H S An; A Vaccaro; J M Cotler; S Lin
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Biomechanical Evaluation of a Growth-Friendly Rod Construct.

Authors:  Sarah Galvis; Josh Arnold; Erin Mannen; Benjamin Wong; Hadley Sis; Eileen Cadel; John Anderson; Dennis Anderson; Paul Arnold; Elizabeth Friis
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2017-01

7.  Validation of a custom spine biomechanics simulator: A case for standardization.

Authors:  John T Sherrill; Safeer F Siddicky; Wyatt D Davis; Caroline Chen; David B Bumpass; Erin M Mannen
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2019-11-06       Impact factor: 2.712

Review 8.  Pseudarthrosis of the spine.

Authors:  Noah M Raizman; Joseph R O'Brien; Kirsten L Poehling-Monaghan; Warren D Yu
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.020

Review 9.  Radiological Fusion Criteria of Postoperative Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Masahito Oshina; Yasushi Oshima; Sakae Tanaka; K Daniel Riew
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2018-02-11
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.