Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Kinematics Following 3-Screw Integrated Interbody Spacers in the Lumbar Spine.
Heary, Robert F; Agarwal, Nitin; Parvathreddy, Naresh K; Hansberry, David R; Ferrara, Lisa A.
Afiliação
  • Heary RF; Department of Neurological Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey.
  • Agarwal N; Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
  • Parvathreddy NK; Department of Neurological Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey.
  • Hansberry DR; Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • Ferrara LA; OrthoKinetic Technologies, LLC, Southport, North Carolina.
Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) ; 18(2): 175-182, 2020 02 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31131859
BACKGROUND: "Stand-alone" fusion implants attempt to alleviate the need for supplemental posterior instrumentation. OBJECTIVE: A biomechanical study was conducted to assess the stability of an integrated 3- screw interbody cage with, and without, supplemental posterior fixation. METHODS: Nondestructive biomechanical testing was performed on 19 healthy cadaver spine segments. Specimens were tested in 6 degrees of motion and a maximum pure bending moment of 10 Nm was applied. Specimens were evaluated in the following sequence: Intact, cage, cage ± facet bolts, and cage ± pedicle screws. Nonconstrained motion was measured at both the index and adjacent levels. RESULTS: The index levels were L2-L3 and L5-S1. The cage alone provided a significant decrease in motion at the L2-L3 level but not at L5-S1. At L2-L3, cage + pedicle screws decreased motion more effectively than cage + facet bolts, however, both the supplemented constructs outperformed intact (P < .05). At L5-S1, both posterior fixation systems appeared to have smaller degree of displacement compared to intact; however, no significant differences were observed at L5-S1 among the various constructs. Furthermore, the adjacent segments for each level (L1-L2 and L4-L5) had no significantly increased motion, compared to intact, for all 6 degrees of motion tested. CONCLUSION: The stand-alone cage was more effective at L2-L3, than at L5-S1, in limiting motion. At L5-S1, supplemental fixation may need to be considered. No abnormal motion was identified at the adjacent, normal segments, for the stand-alone, or the circumferential constructs at either level tested.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Fusão Vertebral / Fenômenos Biomecânicos / Amplitude de Movimento Articular / Parafusos Pediculares / Vértebras Lombares Limite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Fusão Vertebral / Fenômenos Biomecânicos / Amplitude de Movimento Articular / Parafusos Pediculares / Vértebras Lombares Limite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article