EFFECT OF SPINAL CONSTRUCT STIFFNESS ON EARLY FUSION MASS INCORPORATION - EXPERIMENTAL-STUDY

被引:89
作者
JOHNSTON, CE
ASHMAN, RB
BAIRD, AM
ALLARD, RN
机构
[1] Texas Scottish Rite Hospital, Dallas, TX
[2] Department of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A and M University, College Station, TX
关键词
Crosslinking; Fusion mass stiffness; Spinal construct stiffness; Stress-shielding;
D O I
10.1097/00007632-199009000-00013
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
The relationship between initial spinal construct stiffness and the stiffness of the resulting fusion mass was studied by performing standardized 10-segment posterior spinal fusions in goats. Animals were divided into 5 groups based on type of spinal construct, using rods of different diameters (3.2 mm, 4.8 mm, 6.4 mm) with or without rigid crosslinking to produce constructs of different stiffnesses. Stiffness data on 28 animals were obtained by removing the spines en bloc, at 6 or 12 weeks postopera- tively, and performing load-deformation testing in axial and torsional loading to determine the stiffness of the fusion masses (rods removed). The initial construct stiffnesses were also compared by ex vivo testing on spine specimens to correlate initial construct stiffness with eventual fusion mass stiffness. In axial testing, results showed stiffer fusion masses from larger diameter rod constructs compared with smaller rod constructs. This was similar to results of control testing on spine specimens ex vivo. Rigid crosslinking did not produce stiffer fusions in axial testing, due to a technical limitation of the button-wire implants used to segmentally fix the rods at each vertebra. In torsional testing, stiffer fusion masses resulted from using larger rods, and rigid Crosslinking also produced the stiffest fusion masses, which was consistent with ex vivo testing. In general, larger diameter (stiffer) rods produced stiffer fusion masses, and no evidence of stress shielding was found. © Lippincott-Raven Publishers.
引用
收藏
页码:908 / 912
页数:5
相关论文
共 12 条
  • [1] Ashman R.B., Birch J.G., Bone L.B., Et al., Mechanical testing of spinal instrumentation, Clin Orthop, 227, pp. 113-125, (1988)
  • [2] Cotrel Y., Dubousset J., New segmental posterior instrumentation of the spine, Orthop Trans, 9, (1985)
  • [3] Dickson J.H., Harrington P.R., The evolution of the Harrington instrumentation technique in scoliosis, J Bone Joint Surg, 55A, pp. 993-1006, (1973)
  • [4] Drummond D., Guadagni J., Keene J.S., Breed A., Narechania R., Interspinous process segmental spinal instrumentation, J Pediatr Orthop, 4, pp. 397-404, (1984)
  • [5] Guadagni J., Drummond D., Breed A., Improved postoperative course following modified segmental instrumentation and posterior spinal fusion for idiopathic scoliosis, J Pediatr Orthop, 4, pp. 405-408, (1984)
  • [6] Gurr K.R., Mc afee P.C., Warden K.E., Shih C.-M., A roentgenographic and biomechanical analysis of lumbar fusions, A Canine Model, (1988)
  • [7] Johnston C., Ashman R.B., Sherman M.C., Eberle C.F., Herndon W.A., Sullivan J.A., King A., Burke S.W., Mechanical consequences of rod contouring and residual scoliosis in sublaminar segmental instrumentation, J Orthop Res, 5, pp. 206-216, (1987)
  • [8] Johnston C., Ashman R.B., Corin J.D., Mechanical effects of cross-linking rods in Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation, Orthoptrans, 11, pp. 96-97, (1987)
  • [9] Luque E., The anatomic basis and development of segmental spinal instrumentation, Spine, 7, pp. 256-259, (1982)
  • [10] Mc Aee P.C., Lubicky J.P., Werner F.W., The use of segmental spinal instrumentation to preserve longitudinal spinal growth, J Bone Joint Surg, 65A., pp. 935-942, (1983)