首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
检索        


Biomechanical testing of different posterior fusion devices on lumbar spinal range of motion
Institution:1. Center for Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, Gemeinschaftsklinikum Mittelrhein, Ev. Stift Koblenz, Germany;2. University Hospital of Orthopaedic Surgery, Pius-Hospital, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Germany;3. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany;1. Ramsay Santé, Hôpital Privé Jean Mermoz, Centre Orthopédique Santy, Lyon, France;2. ReSurg SA, Nyon, Switzerland
Abstract:BackgroundRecent minimal-invasive posterior fusion devices are supposed to provide stability and obtain fusion in combination with interbody cages in the instrumented segment. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the primary stability of two minimal-invasive posterior prototypes compared to an established spinous process plate and standard pedicle screw instrumentation.MethodsSeven fresh frozen human cadaver lumbar spines (L2–L5) were tested in a spinal testing device with a moment of 7.5 Nm. Spinal stability was determined as mean range of motion (RoM) in the segment L3/L4 during extension-flexion, lateral bending and axial rotation. The RoM was measured during five conditions: 1. intact; 2. working prototype composed of an interspinous device and process plates; 3. an established spinous process fixation device 4. working prototype of facet fixation and 5. pedicle screw fixation.FindingsAll devices caused a significant reduction of RoM during extension-flexion. The RoM during lateral bending was significantly reduced to 37% (of intact) by pedicle screws and 68% by facet fixation prototype. During axial rotation the RoM was significantly reduced to 52% by pedicle screws and to 86% by facet fixation prototype. The other devices had no significant influence on RoM during lateral bending and axial rotation.InterpretationThe facet fixation prototype provided less primary stability compared to pedicle screws, but had significant advantages over spinous process fixation techniques. The results encourage further testing of this implant as a minimal-invasive approach for posterior fixation.
Keywords:
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号