4.4 Article

Biornechanical analysis of a newly designed bioabsorbable anterior cervical plate

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE
卷 3, 期 6, 页码 465-470

出版社

AMER ASSOC NEUROLOGICAL SURGEONS
DOI: 10.3171/spi.2005.3.6.0465

关键词

anterior cervical plate fixation; anterior cervical discectorny and fusion; bioabsorbable plate; cadaver dissection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Object. The authors present a biomechanical analysis of a newly designed bioabsorbable anterior cervical plate (ACP) for the treatment of one-level cervical degenerative disc disease. They Studied anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in a human cadaveric model, comparing the stability of the cervical spine after placement of the bioabsorbable fusion plate, a bioabsorbable mesh. and a more traditional metallic ACP. Methods. Seven human cadaveric specimens underwent a C6-7 fibular graft-assisted ACDF placement. A one-level resorbable ACP was then placed and secured with bioabsorbable screws. Flexibility testing was performed on both intact and instrumented specimens using a servohydraulic system to create flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation motions. After data analysis, three parameters were calculated: angular range of motion, lax zone, and stiff zone. The results were compared with those obtained in a previous study of a resorbable fusion mesh and with those acquired using metallic fusion ACPs. For all parameters Studied, the resorbable plate consistently conferred greater stability than the resorbable mesh. Moreover, it offered comparable stability with that of metallic fusion ACPs. Conclusions. Bioabsorbable plates provide better stability than resorbable mesh. Although the results of this study do not necessarily indicate that a resorbable plate confers equivalent stability to a metal plate, the resorbable ACP certainly yielded better results than the resorbable mesh. Bioabsorbable fusion ACPs should therefore be considered as alternatives to metal plates when a graft containment device is required.

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