Comparison of the Rigid Rod System with Modular Plate with the Finite Element Analysis in Short-Segment Posterior Stabilization in the Lower Lumbar Region

Equivalent results in the limitation of movement and rigidity allow for the use of these systems for short-segment posterior spinal instrumentation with the same indications

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯

Amaç & Hipotez:AIm: Many studies are available in the literature on posterior spinal instrumentation, though the use of a rod and a plate is still controversial in the literature.

📊

Temel Bulgular & Veri:In this study, a finite element analysis of the strength and superiority of modular rigid plate and rod systems, which are used in the lower lumbar region, in comparison with each other was used. mATERIAl and mEThODS: A Ti6Al4V (Grade 5) titanium biocompatible alloy anterior plate was used for the lumbar spine fixation device, and a finite element analysis was conducted on the human lumbar spine model.

💡

Sonuç & Katkı:Equivalent results in the limitation of movement and rigidity allow for the use of these systems for short-segment posterior spinal instrumentation with the same indications

🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon

📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem

⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

AIm: Many studies are available in the literature on posterior spinal instrumentation, though the use of a rod and a plate is still controversial in the literature. In this study, a finite element analysis of the strength and superiority of modular rigid plate and rod systems, which are used in the lower lumbar region, in comparison with each other was used. mATERIAl and mEThODS: A Ti6Al4V (Grade 5) titanium biocompatible alloy anterior plate was used for the lumbar spine fixation device, and a finite element analysis was conducted on the human lumbar spine model. In this study, an intact spine, a rigid system fixed with a rod, and modular plate systems were evaluated at flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. RESUlTS: They did not show statistically significant superiority over one another in terms of limitations in movement during the range of motion exercises and rigidity. CONClUSION: The posterior rigid stabilization system and novel stabilization system do not have a significant superiority over one another. Equivalent results in the limitation of movement and rigidity allow for the use of these systems for short-segment posterior spinal instrumentation with the same indications

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

YALDIZ, C., ÖZKAL, B., GÜVENÇ, Y., SENTURK, S., ERBULUT, D., ZAFARPARANDAH, I., YAMAN, O., SOLAROĞLU, İ., ÖZER, A. F. (2017). Comparison of the Rigid Rod System with Modular Plate with the Finite Element Analysis in Short-Segment Posterior Stabilization in the Lower Lumbar Region. Turkish Neurosurgery, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 4, 610–616. https://ajindex.com/articles/404619

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

Yeni Sekmede Aç ↗

↗Yeni Sekme

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (1)

Albee FH: Transplantation of a portion of the tibia into the spine for Pott’s disease. JAMA 57: 885-886, 1911 2. Boucher HH: A method of spinal fusion. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 41: 248-259, 1959 3. Clohisy JC, Akbarnia BA, Bucholz RD, Burkus JK, Backer RJ: Neurologic recovery associated with anterior decompression of spine fractures at the thoracolumbar junction (T12-L1). Spine 17:325–330, 1992 4. Cloward RB: History of posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Springfields: Charles C Thomas 58, 1982 5. Cotrel Y, Dubousset J: A new technic for segmental spinal osteosynthesis using the posterior approach. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 70(6): 489-494, 1984 (In French) 6. Edwards WC: The sacral fixation device: A new alternative for lumbosacral fixation. Paper read at the meeting of the North American Spine Society, Laguna Niguel, California, 1985:882 7. Foster MR: A functional classification of spinal instrumentation. Spine J 5(6): 682-694, 2005 8. Freeman BL: Scoliosis and Kyphosis. In: Canale ST (ed), Campbell’s Operative Orthopaedics, Vol: 2, 10th ed. Philadelphia: Mosby, 2003:1751-1837 9. Hadra BE: Wiring the spinous processes in Pott’s disease. Trans American Orthopedic Associated 4: 206-210, 1891 10. Hibbs RA: An operation for progressive spinal deformities. New York Medical Journal 93: 1013-1016, 1911 11. Humphries AW, Hawk WA, Berndt AL: Anterior fusion of the lumbar spine using an internal fixation device. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 41: 371, 1959 12. King D: Internal fixation for lumbosacral fusion. J Bone Joint Surg 30: 560-565, 1948 13. Krag MH, Beynnon BD, Pope MH: An internal fixator for posterior application to short segments of the thoracic, lumbar or lumbosacral spine. Design and testing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 203:75 -98, 1986 14. Louis R: Fusion of the lumbar and sacral spine by internal fixation with screw plates. Clin Orthop Relat Res 203:18-33, 1986 15. Magerl F: External skeletal fixation of the lower thoracic and upper lumbar spine. Current Concepts of External Fixation of Fractures. Springer Berlin Heidelberg Verlag, 353-366, 1982 16. Ozar E, Senol O, Uysal L, Taskın M: Adjacent segment instability and degeneration after posterior lumbar stabilisation. Düşünen Adam 19(4): 194-203, 2006 (In Turkish) 17. Robinson RA, Smith GW: Anterolateral cervical disc removal and interbody fusion for cervical disc syndrome. Bull John Hopkıns Hosp 96: 223, 1955 18. Rogers WA: Treatment of fracture-dislocation of the cervical spine. J Bone Joint Surg 24: