Suppr超能文献

针对双节段腰椎疾病的三种不同后路固定技术的生物力学比较。

A biomechanical comparison of 3 different posterior fixation techniques for 2-level lumbar spinal disorders.

作者信息

Liu Fubing, Feng Zhenzhou, Liu Tianze, Fei Qinming, Jiang Chun, Li Yuanchao, Jiang Xiaoxing, Dong Jian

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedics, Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University; and.

Institute of Biomedical Production and Life Quality Program, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.

出版信息

J Neurosurg Spine. 2016 Mar;24(3):375-80. doi: 10.3171/2015.7.SPINE1534. Epub 2015 Dec 4.

Abstract

OBJECT

This study sought to make a biomechanical comparison of 3 different posterior fixation techniques for 2-level lumbar spinal disorders.

METHODS

Eight fresh-frozen human cadaver lumbar spines (4 from L-1 to L-5, 4 from L-1 to S-1) were tested by applying pure moments of ± 8 Nm. Each specimen was first tested intact, and then the left facetectomies of L3-4 and L4-5 were performed to establish an unstable condition without removal of discs. Three instrumentation systems were then tested randomly: unilateral pedicle screw (UPS), UPS with contralateral translaminar facet screw (UPSFS), and bilateral pedicle screw (BPS). The range of motion (ROM) and the neutral zone (NZ) of L3-5 were measured.

RESULTS

All fixation types could reduce the ROM of L3-5 significantly in flexion, extension, and lateral bending, compared with the intact state. In axial torsion, only BPS reduced the ROM significantly, compared with the intact state. The UPSFS technique provided intermediate stability, which was superior to the UPS in flexion-extension and lateral bending, and inferior to the BPS in lateral bending. Compared with the intact state, the NZs decreased significantly for UPS, UPSFS, and BPS in flexion-extension, while not significantly in lateral bending and axial torsion.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, among the 3 fixation techniques, BPS offered the highest stability, UPSFS provided intermediate stability, and UPS was the least stable for 2-level lumbar spinal disorders. UPSFS appeared to be able to offer a less invasive choice than BPS in well-selected patients with 2-level lumbar spinal disorders.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在对治疗两节段腰椎疾病的三种不同后路固定技术进行生物力学比较。

方法

对八具新鲜冷冻的人体尸体腰椎(4具L1至L5,4具L1至S1)施加±8 Nm的纯力矩进行测试。每个标本首先进行完整测试,然后进行L3 - 4和L4 - 5左侧小关节切除术以建立不稳定状态,不摘除椎间盘。然后随机测试三种内固定系统:单侧椎弓根螺钉(UPS)、带对侧经椎板小关节螺钉的UPS(UPSFS)和双侧椎弓根螺钉(BPS)。测量L3 - 5的活动范围(ROM)和中性区(NZ)。

结果

与完整状态相比,所有固定类型在屈伸和侧方弯曲时均可显著降低L3 - 5的ROM。在轴向扭转时,与完整状态相比,仅BPS显著降低了ROM。UPSFS技术提供了中等稳定性,在屈伸和侧方弯曲方面优于UPS,在侧方弯曲方面不如BPS。与完整状态相比,UPS、UPSFS和BPS在屈伸时的NZ显著减小,而在侧方弯曲和轴向扭转时不显著。

结论

在本研究中,对于两节段腰椎疾病,三种固定技术中BPS稳定性最高,UPSFS提供中等稳定性,UPS最不稳定。对于精心挑选且患有两节段腰椎疾病的患者,UPSFS似乎比BPS提供了一种侵入性较小的选择。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验