In vitro testing of a new transpedicular stabilization technique

被引:28
作者
Pfeiffer M. [1 ]
Hoffman H. [2 ]
Goel V.K. [2 ]
Weinstein J.N. [3 ]
Griss P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Department of Orthopaedics, Philipps University, D-35033 Marburg, Baldingerstrasse
[2] Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA
[3] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA
关键词
Biomechanics; Pedicle screw; Spinal fusion; Spine; Stress shielding;
D O I
10.1007/BF01322447
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The rigidity of a pedicle screw implant is a critical biomechanical variable in lumbar spinal fusions. Sufficient rigidity is required for integration of bone grafts and to promote healing. Osteopenia, stress shielding, and compensatory hypermobility have been described as consequences of excessive rigidity. Little is known about the biomechanical characteristics of 'semirigid' compared to 'rigid' implants. A new implant, whose rigidity can be varied by selection of different implant components, was tested in vitro under well-defined loading conditions. The three- dimensional load-displacement behavior of all lumbar vertebrae involved in or adjacent to the two-level fusion was evaluated for two fusion modifications: bilateral rigid and bilateral semirigid. Cyclic fatigue loading was subsequently carried out under realistic conditions and motion testing repeated. The rigid device reduced the motion of the L3-4 transfixed segment in the primary movement planes by 87.3% with respect to the intact spine value in flexion/extension (FE), 86.3% in lateral bending (LB), and 76.8% in axial rotation (AR). The semirigid device achieved a reduction in motion of 79.6% (FE), 82.7% (LB), and 51.7% (AR). The semirigid implant was particularly easy to insert, because no bending of rods or plates was necessary. The implants showed no loosening or breakage after the fatigue testing. The results are compared to other available systems and the underlying biomechanics discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:249 / 255
页数:6
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]
Abumi K., Panjabi M.M., Duranceau J., Biomechanical evaluation of spinal fixation devices. III. Stability provided by six spinal fixation devices and interbody bone graft, Spine, 14, pp. 1249-1255, (1989)
[2]
Angst M., Winter M., Lang M.C., Dorsal tension band stabilization for the lumbar spine analyzed in vitro, J Biomech, 26, (1993)
[3]
Blumenthal S., Gill K., Complications of the Wiltse pedicle screw fixation system, Spine, 18, pp. 1867-1871, (1993)
[4]
Dalenberg D.D., Asher M.A., Robinson R.G., Jayaraman G., The effect of a stiff spinal implant and its loosening on bone mineral content in canines, Spine, 18, pp. 1862-1866, (1993)
[5]
Farey I.D., McAfee P.C., Gurr K.R., Randolph M.A., Quantitative histologic study of the influence of spinal instrumentation on lumbar fusions: A canine model, J Orthop Res, 7, pp. 709-722, (1989)
[6]
Gaines R.W., Carson W.L., Satterlee C.C., Groh G.I., Experimental evaluation of seven different spinal fracture internal fixation devices using nonfailure stability testing, Spine, 16, pp. 902-909, (1991)
[7]
Galante J.O., Tensile properties of the human lumbar annulus fibrosus, Acta Orthop Scand Suppl, 100, pp. 30-32, (1967)
[8]
Goel V.K., Weinstein J.N., Biomechanics of the Spine: Clinical and Surgical Perspective, (1990)
[9]
Goel V.K., Nye T.A., Clark C.R., Nishiyama K., Weinstein J.N., A technique to evaluate an internal spinal device by use of the Selspot system: An application to the Luque closed loop, Spine, 12, pp. 150-159, (1987)
[10]
Goel V.K., Lim T.H., Gwon J., Chen J.Y., Winterbottom J.M., Park J.B., Weinstein J.N., Ahn J.Y., Effects of rigidity of an internal fixation device. A comprehensive biomechanical investigation, Spine, 16, (1991)