INTERSEGMENTAL SPINAL FLEXIBILITY WITH LUMBOSACRAL INSTRUMENTATION - AN INVITRO BIOMECHANICAL INVESTIGATION

被引:38
作者
ASAZUMA, T
STOKES, IAF
MORELAND, MS
SUZUKI, N
机构
[1] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keio University, School of Medicine, Tokyo
[2] Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Vermont, Burlington
[3] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Saiseikai Central Hospital, Tokyo
关键词
Biomechanics; Fusion; Lumbosacral spine; Pedicle screw fixation; Surgical implants;
D O I
10.1097/00007632-199011010-00013
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Flexibility of the porcine lumbosacral spine was measured after application of six different types of surgical instrumentation, and in a control state. Fifteen adult pig spines were tested with flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation torques applied to the upper end with the pelvis fixed. Instrumentation was applied across two lumbar segments and the lumbosacral level (L5-6, L6-7, and L7-S1). Stereophotogrammetry was used to track markers applied to each vertebra. Intersegmental motion was measured as three angles and as the relative linear translation of adjacent transverse processes and spinous processes. Results showed that all instrumentation systems reduced intersegmental motion compared with the control state, except for minimal reduction at L5-6 by Harrington instrumentation in all loading directions, especially axial rotation. The'pedicle screw systems were always the most rigid. After applying instrumentation, there were differences in the motion occurring at different anatomic levels, most commonly with the least motion occurring in the middle of the instrumented segment (L6-7). When intervertebral motion was expressed as the linear motion between adjacent spinous and transverse processes, the usual site of posterolateral fusion, it was 0.6 to 1.8 mm per degree of angular motion at the transverse processes and 1.3 to 2.1 mm per degree at spinous processes. © Lippincott-Raven Publishers.
引用
收藏
页码:1153 / 1158
页数:6
相关论文
共 42 条
[1]  
Allen B.L., Ferguson R.L., The Galveston technique for 1-rod instrumentation of the scoliosis spine, Spine, 7, pp. 276-284, (1982)
[2]  
Allen B.L., Ferguson R.L., The Galveston technique of pelvic fixation with 1-rod instrumentation of the spine, Spine, 9, pp. 388-394, (1984)
[3]  
Ashman R.B., Birch J.G., Bone L.B., Et al., Mechanical testing of spinal instrumentation, Clin Orthop, 227, pp. 113-125, (1988)
[4]  
Farcy J.P., Weidenbaum M., Michelson C.B., Hoeltzel D.A., Athanasiou K.A., A comparative biomechanical study of spinal fixation using Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation, Spine, 12, pp. 877-881, (1987)
[5]  
Fidier M.W., Posterior instrumentation of the spine. An experimental comparison of various possible techniques, Spine, 11, pp. 367-372, (1986)
[6]  
Freedman L.S., Houghton G.R., Evans M., Cadaveric study comparing the stability of upper distraction hooks used in Harrington instrumentation, Spine, 11, pp. 579-582, (1986)
[7]  
Gaines R.W., Mc Kinley C.M., Leatherman K.D., Effect of the Harrington compression system on the correction of the rib hump in spinal instrumentation for idiopathic scoliosis, Spine, 6, pp. 489-493, (1981)
[8]  
Gurr K.R., Mc Afee P.C., Shih C.-M., Biomechanical analysis of posterior instrumentation system after decompression laminectomy. An unstable calf model, J Bone Joint Surg, 70A, pp. 680-691, (1988)
[9]  
Guyer D.W., Yuan H.A., Werner F.W., Frederickson B.E., Murphy D., Biomechanical comparison of seven internal fixation devices for the lumbosacral junction, Spine, 12, pp. 569-573, (1987)
[10]  
Johnston I., Ashman R.B., Sherman M.C., Et al., Mechanical consequences of rod contouring and residual scoliosis in sublaminar segmental instrumentation, J Orthop Res, 5, pp. 206-216, (1987)