4.7 Article

Load-sharing biomechanics of lumbar fixation and fusion with pedicle subtraction osteotomy

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-83251-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Scoliosis Research Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The load-sharing between the ventral spinal structures and posterior instrumentation is crucial after PSO surgery. Additional accessory rods can reduce strain on the posterior rods, facilitating load transfer and explaining the higher fusion rate with decreased rod fracture risk.
Pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) is an invasive surgical technique allowing the restoration of a well-balanced sagittal profile, however, the risks of pseudarthrosis and instrumentation breakage are still high. Literature studied primary stability and posterior instrumentation loads, neglecting the load shared by the anterior column, which is fundamental to promote fusion early after surgery. The study aimed at quantifying the load-sharing occurring after PSO procedure across the ventral spinal structures and the posterior instrumentation, as affected by simple bilateral fixation alone, with interbody cages adjacent to PSO level and supplementary accessory rods. Lumbar spine segments were loaded in vitro under flexion-extension, lateral bending, and torsion using an established spine tester. Digital image correlation (DIC) and strain-gauge (SG) analyses measured, respectively, the full-field strain distribution on the ventral surface of the spine and the local strain on posterior primary rods. Ventral strains considerably decreased following PSO and instrumentation, confirming the effectiveness of posterior load-sharing. Supplemental accessory rods considerably reduced the posterior rod strains only with interbody cages, but the ventral strains were unaffected: this indicates that the load transfer across the osteotomy could be promoted, thus explaining the higher fusion rate with decreased rod fracture risk reported in clinical literature.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据