Literature DB >> 7600149

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

U Berlemann1, P Cripton, L P Nolte, K Lippuner, F Schläpfer.   

Abstract

Pedicle hooks which are used as an anchorage for posterior spinal instrumentation may be subjected to considerable three-dimensional forces. In order to achieve stronger attachment to the implantation site, hooks using screws for additional fixation have been developed. The failure loads and mechanisms of three such devices have been experimentally determined on human thoracic vertebrae: the Universal Spine System (USS) pedicle hook with one screw, a prototype pedicle hook with two screws and the Cotrel-Dubousset (CD) pedicle hook with screw. The USS hooks use 3.2-mm self-tapping fixation screws which pass into the pedicle, whereas the CD hook is stabilised with a 3-mm set screw pressing against the superior part of the facet joint. A clinically established 5-mm pedicle screw was tested for comparison. A matched pair experimental design was implemented to evaluate these implants in constrained (series I) and rotationally unconstrained (series II) posterior pull-out tests. In the constrained tests the pedicle screw was the strongest implant, with an average pull-out force of 1650 N (SD 623 N). The prototype hook was comparable, with an average failure load of 1530 N (SD 414 N). The average pull-out force of the USS hook with one screw was 910 N (SD 243 N), not significantly different to the CD hook's average failure load of 740 N (SD 189 N). The result of the unconstrained tests were similar, with the prototype hook being the strongest device (average 1617 N, SD 652 N). However, in this series the difference in failure load between the USS hook with one screw and the CD hook was significant. Average failure loads of 792 N (SD 184 N) for the USS hook and 464 N (SD 279 N) for the CD hook were measured. A pedicular fracture in the plane of the fixation screw was the most common failure mode for USS hooks.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7600149     DOI: 10.1007/BF00278923

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


  27 in total

1.  Treatment of scoliosis. Correction and internal fixation by spine instrumentation.

Authors:  P R HARRINGTON
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1962-06       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Influence of bone mineral density on the fixation of thoracolumbar implants. A comparative study of transpedicular screws, laminar hooks, and spinous process wires.

Authors:  J D Coe; K E Warden; M A Herzig; P C McAfee
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Biomechanical stability of five pedicle screw fixation systems in a human lumbar spine instability model.

Authors:  M M Panjabi; I Yamamoto; T R Oxland; J J Crisco; D Freedman
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 2.063

4.  Biomechanical testing of three newly developed transpedicular multisegmental fixation systems.

Authors:  S Eggli; F Schläpfer; M Angst; P Witschger; M Aebi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Treatment of symptomatic flatback after spinal fusion.

Authors:  M O Lagrone; D S Bradford; J H Moe; J E Lonstein; R B Winter; J W Ogilvie
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Depth of insertion of transpedicular vertebral screws into human vertebrae: effect upon screw-vertebra interface strength.

Authors:  M H Krag; B D Beynnon; M H Pope; T A DeCoster
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  1988

7.  Pedicle screws: axial pull-out strength in the lumbar spine.

Authors:  P Sell; M Collins; J Dove
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Posterior instrumentation and fusion for unstable fractures and fracture-dislocations of the thoracic and lumbar spine. A comparative study of three fixation devices in 70 patients.

Authors:  R C Sasso; H B Cotler
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  A locking hook spinal rod system for stabilization of fracture-dislocations and correction of deformities of the dorsolumbar spine. A biomechanic evaluation.

Authors:  R R Jacobs; F Schlaepfer; R Mathys; A Nachemson; S M Perren
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  An analysis of failed Harrington rods.

Authors:  S D Cook; R L Barrack; F S Georgette; T S Whitecloud; S W Burke; H B Skinner; E A Renz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1985-05       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  5 in total

1.  Biomechanical evaluation of a bipedicular spinal fixation device: three different strength tests.

Authors:  Laurent Balabaud; Emeric Gallard; Wafa Skalli; Bernard Dupas; Robert Roger; François Lavaste; Jean-Paul Steib
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-04-05       Impact factor: 3.134

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

Authors:  Wilbert van Laar; Rinse J Meester; Theo H Smit; Barend J van Royen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-01-03       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Pull-out strength of pedicle hooks with fixation screws: influence of screw length and angulation.

Authors:  U Berlemann; P A Cripton; L Rincon; L P Nolte; F Schläpfer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  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

5.  Spinal balance and lumbar curve stability after selective thoracic fusion in idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Aaron Gebrelul; Ann Marie Karam; Kiley Poppino; Chan-Hee Jo; B Stephens Richards
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2020-10-28
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.