首页> 外文期刊>Asian spine journal. >Evaluation of Two Novel Integrated Stand-Alone Spacer Designs Compared with Anterior and Anterior-Posterior Single-Level Lumbar Fusion Techniques: An In Vitro Biomechanical Investigation
【24h】

Evaluation of Two Novel Integrated Stand-Alone Spacer Designs Compared with Anterior and Anterior-Posterior Single-Level Lumbar Fusion Techniques: An In Vitro Biomechanical Investigation

机译:两种新型集成式独立间隔器设计与前,后后单级腰椎融合技术的比较评估:体外生物力学研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Study Design In vitro biomechanical investigation. Purpose To compare the biomechanics of integrated three-screw and four-screw anterior interbody spacer devices and traditional techniques for treatment of degenerative disc disease. Overview of Literature Biomechanical literature describes investigations of operative techniques and integrated devices with four dual-stacked, diverging interbody screws; four alternating, converging screws through a polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) spacer; and four converging screws threaded within the PEEK spacer. Conflicting reports on the stability of stand-alone devices and the influence of device design on biomechanics warrant investigation. Methods Fourteen cadaveric lumbar spines were divided randomly into two equal groups (n=7). Each spine was tested intact, after discectomy (injured), and with PEEK interbody spacer alone (S), anterior lumbar plate and spacer (AP+S), bilateral pedicle screws and spacer (BPS+S), circumferential fixation with spacer and anterior lumbar plate supplemented with BPS, and three-screw (SA3s) or four-screw (SA4s) integrated spacers. Constructs were tested in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR). Researchers performed one-way analysis of variance and independent t -testing ( p ≤0.05). Results Instrumented constructs showed significantly decreased motion compared with intact except the spacer-alone construct in FE and AR ( p ≤0.05). SA3s showed significantly decreased range of motion (ROM) compared with AP+S in LB ( p ≤0.05) and comparable ROM in FE and AR. The three-screw design increased stability in FE and LB with no significant differences between integrated spacers or between integrated spacers and BPS+S in all loading modes. Conclusions Integrated spacers provided fixation statistically equivalent to traditional techniques. Comparison of three-screw and four-screw integrated anterior lumbar interbody fusion spacers revealed no significant differences, but the longer, larger-diameter interbody spacer with three-screw design increased stabilization in FE and LB; the diverging four-screw design showed marginal improvement during AR.
机译:研究设计体外生物力学研究。目的比较整合的三螺钉和四螺钉前椎间间隔器的生物力学以及传统的治疗退变性椎间盘疾病的技术。文献综述生物力学文献描述了使用四个双堆叠,不同的椎体间螺钉进行手术技术和集成装置的研究。通过聚醚醚酮(PEEK)隔圈的四个交替的会聚螺钉;并在PEEK垫片中拧入四颗会聚螺钉。关于独立设备的稳定性以及设备设计对生物力学影响的相互矛盾的报告值得调查。方法将14具尸体腰椎随机分为两组,每组7例。椎间盘切除术(受伤)后,并单独使用PEEK椎间间隔器(S),前腰椎板和间隔器(AP + S),双侧椎弓根螺钉和间隔器(BPS + S),带间隔器和前路的周向固定,对每个脊柱进行完整测试腰椎板补充了BPS和三螺钉(SA3)或四螺钉(SA4)集成的垫片。对结构进行了屈伸(FE),侧向弯曲(LB)和轴向旋转(AR)测试。研究人员进行了方差的单向分析和独立的t检验(p≤0.05)。结果除了在FE和AR中仅使用间隔子的构建体(p≤0.05)外,与完整的构建体相比,仪器化的构建体显示出明显的运动降低。与LB中的AP + S相比,SA3s的运动范围(ROM)显着降低(p≤0.05),而FE和AR中的ROM则相当。三螺杆设计提高了FE和LB的稳定性,在所有加载模式下,集成垫片之间或集成垫片与BPS + S之间没有显着差异。结论集成的垫片在统计学上等效于传统技术,可提供固定。比较三螺钉和四螺钉集成的前腰椎椎间融合器垫片没有显着差异,但是更长的,更大直径的三螺钉设计椎间融合器增加了FE和LB的稳定性。分散的四螺杆设计显示了AR期间的少量改进。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号