4.4 Article

Finite Element Analysis of Long Posterior Transpedicular Instrumentation for Cervicothoracic Fractures Related to Ankylosing Spondylitis

期刊

GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 570-578

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/2192568217745068

关键词

spinal fractures; ankylosing spondylitis; finite element model; spinal instrumentation; biomechanics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Design: Biomechanical finite element model analysis. Objectives: Spinal fractures related to ankylosing spondylitis (AS) are often treated by long posterior stabilization. The objective of this study is to develop a finite element model (FEM) for spinal fractures related to AS and to establish a biomechanical foundation for long posterior stabilization of cervicothoracic fractures related to AS. Methods: An existing FEM (consisting of 2 separately developed models) including the cervical and thoracic spine were adapted to the conditions of AS (all discs fused, C0-C1 and C1-C2 mobile). A fracture at the level C6-C7 was simulated. Besides a normal spine (no AS, no fracture) and the uninstrumented fractured spine 4 different posterior transpedicular instrumentations were tested. Three loads (1.5g, 3.0g, 4.5g) were applied according to a specific load curve. Results: All posterior stabilization methods could normalize the axial stability at the fracture site as measured with gap distance. The maximum stress at the cranial instrumentation end (C3-C4) was slightly greater if every level was instrumented, than in the skipped level model. The skipped level instrumentation achieved similar rotatory stability as the long multilevel instrumentation. Conclusions: Skipping instrumentation levels without giving up instrumentation length reduced stresses in the ossified tissue within the range of the instrumentation and did not decrease the stability in a FEM of a cervicothoracic fracture related to AS. Considering the risks associated with every additional screw placed, the skipped level instrumentation has advantages regarding patient safety.

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

4.4
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