...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of spinal disorders & techniques. >Spinal instrumentation for sacral-pelvic fixation: a biomechanical comparison between constructs ending with either S2 bicortical, bitriangulated screws or iliac screws.
【24h】

Spinal instrumentation for sacral-pelvic fixation: a biomechanical comparison between constructs ending with either S2 bicortical, bitriangulated screws or iliac screws.

机译:骨-骨盆固定的脊柱器械:以S2双皮质,双尖螺钉或螺钉结尾的结构之间的生物力学比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

STUDY DESIGN: A biomechanical study of 2 fixation techniques for lumbosacral fixation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate 2 techniques, one using S1 screws combined with bicortical, bitriangulated (BCBT) S2 screws, and the other using S1 screws combined with iliac screws. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Common to the 2 techniques of sacral-pelvic fixation is S1 pedicle screws; the difference lies between S2 screws versus iliac screws. Iliac screws are clinically effective, yet present clinical disadvantages that S2 screws can potentially obviate, for example, wide dissection, soft tissue coverage, crossing the sacroiliac joint, and interference with bone graft harvesting. In an effort to optimize S2 fixation, we have used a BCBT S2 technique. METHODS: Eight fresh human sacral-pelvic specimens were harvested (average age 78.7 y; bone density 0.75 g/cm2). Screws were placed bilaterally: (1) at S1: 7.5 mm diameter screws were placed bicortical; (2) at S2: 7.5 mm diameter by 60 mm long screws were placed bicortical and bitriangulated; (3) the ilium received 7.5 mm diameter by 80-mm-long screws. Sacral-pelvic constructs were assembled and biomechanical stiffness testing was performed. The stiffness in each loading mode was calculated. After the stiffness tests were completed, each BCBT S2 screw and each iliac screw were individually loaded to determine fixation strength of each type of screw. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in stiffness between the 2 constructs, although S1 and the BCBT S2 construct tended to be stiffer in all modes. However, for the fixation strength of screws, the iliac screws loosened at loads that were significantly greater than those for BCBT S2 screws (c.f. 435.9 N with 144.7 N). CONCLUSIONS: Iliac screws maybe the better choice in cases with poor bone quality. However, the S1-BCBT-S2 screw construct is biomechanically an appropriate alternative to the S1-iliac screw construct and it presents clinical advantages.
机译:研究设计:腰s固定的两种固定技术的生物力学研究。目的:要评估两种技术,一种结合使用S1螺钉和双皮质双比特(BCBT)S2螺钉,另一种结合使用S1螺钉和骨螺钉。背景资料摘要:1骨骨盆固定是这两种技术的共同点。 S2螺钉与螺钉之间的区别在于。 lia骨螺钉在临床上是有效的,但存在临床上的缺点,即S2螺钉可能会消除,例如,解剖范围宽,软组织覆盖,穿过sa关节和干扰移植骨的收获。为了优化S2固定,我们使用了BCBT S2技术。方法:收集八份新鲜的人骨盆标本(平均年龄78.7岁;骨密度0.75 g / cm2)。将螺钉向两侧放置:(1)在S1:将7.5毫米直径的螺钉双皮质放置; (2)在S2处:将直径7.5mm,长60mm的螺钉双皮质放置并进行双尖刺; (3)lium骨用80毫米长的螺钉固定住7.5毫米直径。 ac骨骨盆结构组装和生物力学刚度测试进行。计算每种加载模式下的刚度。刚度测试完成后,分别加载每个BCBT S2螺钉和每个骨螺钉,以确定每种类型的螺钉的固定强度。结果:尽管S1和BCBT S2构造在所有模式下都趋于刚性,但2种构造之间的刚度没有显着差异。但是,对于螺钉的固定强度,the骨螺钉在明显大于BCBT S2螺钉的载荷(参见435.9 N和144.7 N)下松动。结论:对于骨质量较差的患者,I骨螺钉可能是更好的选择。然而,S1-BCBT-S2螺丝构建体在生物力学上是S1-ilia骨螺丝构建体的合适替代品,并且具有临床优势。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号