Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2025
Assessment of Dose Calculation Accuracy of Monaco Treatment Planning System for Effective Wedge Angle in Internal Wedged Fields using Two Different Analytical Methods.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mortazavi Seyed Alireza, Said-Salman Ilham, Khatib Sami El, Taghizadeh Parmis, Mortazavi Seyed Mohammad Javad, Sihver Lembit
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The biomechanical impacts of Conventional Open Surgery (COS) versus Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) fusion techniques on adjacent segments and their potential role in developing Adjacent Segment Disease (ASD) remain uncertain for spondylolisthesis.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the impact of MIS and COS fusion surgeries on adjacent spinal segments for spondylolisthesis, through on muscle injury and developing ASD.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective and non-randomized controls study used a validated musculoskeletal model to compare the biomechanical effects of COS and MIS L4/L5 fusion surgery on patients with spondylolisthesis. The model incorporated kinematic data from 30 patients who underwent each surgery. A sitting task was simulated to model post-operative muscle atrophy, and the analysis focused on changes in biomechanics of adjacent spinal segments.
RESULTS: Lumbar flexion was significantly greater (201%) in MIS vs. COS, despite similar pelvic tilt. Consequently, Lumbopelvic Rhythm (LPR) also increased in MIS (133%). Both techniques altered inter-segmental moments. While inter-joint load was higher in COS, only the lower joint's compressive load was significantly greater (67%). Additionally, MIS required lower overall muscle force with reduced loads and passive moment on spinal joints compared to COS.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that MIS fusion preserves physiological LPR better than COS. MIS maintains normal spinal curvature and maintains lumbar lordosis. While open surgery can lead to abnormal curvature and increased muscle forces to compensate for spinal stability. The study emphasizes the importance of paraspinal muscles in influencing spinal load distribution during MIS compare to COS.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the impact of MIS and COS fusion surgeries on adjacent spinal segments for spondylolisthesis, through on muscle injury and developing ASD.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective and non-randomized controls study used a validated musculoskeletal model to compare the biomechanical effects of COS and MIS L4/L5 fusion surgery on patients with spondylolisthesis. The model incorporated kinematic data from 30 patients who underwent each surgery. A sitting task was simulated to model post-operative muscle atrophy, and the analysis focused on changes in biomechanics of adjacent spinal segments.
RESULTS: Lumbar flexion was significantly greater (201%) in MIS vs. COS, despite similar pelvic tilt. Consequently, Lumbopelvic Rhythm (LPR) also increased in MIS (133%). Both techniques altered inter-segmental moments. While inter-joint load was higher in COS, only the lower joint's compressive load was significantly greater (67%). Additionally, MIS required lower overall muscle force with reduced loads and passive moment on spinal joints compared to COS.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that MIS fusion preserves physiological LPR better than COS. MIS maintains normal spinal curvature and maintains lumbar lordosis. While open surgery can lead to abnormal curvature and increased muscle forces to compensate for spinal stability. The study emphasizes the importance of paraspinal muscles in influencing spinal load distribution during MIS compare to COS.