Spine · 2005
Single-rod versus dual-rod anterior instrumentation for idiopathic scoliosis: a biomechanical study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Lowe Thomas G, Enguidanos Stephen T, Smith David A B, Hashim Shukor, Eule James M, O'Brien Michael F, Diekmann Molly J, Wilson Lucas, Trommeter Julie M
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: Anterior single- and dual-rod instrumented human and ovine thoracolumbar spines, with and without structural interbody support (SIS), were biomechanically tested and compared in flexion, lateral bending, and torsion.
OBJECTIVE: To determine significant differences in global stiffness of the constructs in an attempt to clarify specific indications for each in the treatment of spinal deformities.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Single- and dual-rod anterior systems have been used without any consensus as to indications for one versus the other. The potential added benefit of incorporating SIS and transverse connectors (dual-rod) with these constructs has also not been fully explored.
METHODS: Four human cadaveric and six ovine spines were instrumented in single- and dual-rod constructs and biomechanically tested intact, postdiscectomy with and without SIS, with single- and dual-rod constructs, and with and without transverse connectors (ovine only). Biomechanical testing modes were flexion, lateral bending, and torsion.
RESULTS: In the human cadaveric specimens, testing in flexion revealed that SIS was the major contributing factor for construct stiffness. In lateral bending, stiffness of single- and dual-rod constructs with and without SIS was equivalent. In torsion, both single- and dual-rod instrumentation and SIS appeared to contribute to global stiffness. In ovine specimens, dual rods were stiffer than single-rod constructs and SIS played only a minor role. Transverse connectors appeared to significantly stiffen dual-rod constructs in torsion only.
CONCLUSIONS: Dual-rod constructs with SIS appear to be the best combination for providing stiffness in anterior instrumentation. The addition of cross-links to anterior constructs does not appear to increase stiffness except in torsion.
OBJECTIVE: To determine significant differences in global stiffness of the constructs in an attempt to clarify specific indications for each in the treatment of spinal deformities.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Single- and dual-rod anterior systems have been used without any consensus as to indications for one versus the other. The potential added benefit of incorporating SIS and transverse connectors (dual-rod) with these constructs has also not been fully explored.
METHODS: Four human cadaveric and six ovine spines were instrumented in single- and dual-rod constructs and biomechanically tested intact, postdiscectomy with and without SIS, with single- and dual-rod constructs, and with and without transverse connectors (ovine only). Biomechanical testing modes were flexion, lateral bending, and torsion.
RESULTS: In the human cadaveric specimens, testing in flexion revealed that SIS was the major contributing factor for construct stiffness. In lateral bending, stiffness of single- and dual-rod constructs with and without SIS was equivalent. In torsion, both single- and dual-rod instrumentation and SIS appeared to contribute to global stiffness. In ovine specimens, dual rods were stiffer than single-rod constructs and SIS played only a minor role. Transverse connectors appeared to significantly stiffen dual-rod constructs in torsion only.
CONCLUSIONS: Dual-rod constructs with SIS appear to be the best combination for providing stiffness in anterior instrumentation. The addition of cross-links to anterior constructs does not appear to increase stiffness except in torsion.