Clinical Medical College of Dali University, Dali, China.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, 920th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force, Kunming, China.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 Jun 7;103(23):e38520. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038520.
To elucidate the differences in mechanical performance between a novel axially controlled compression spinal rod (ACCSR) for lumbar spondylolysis (LS) and the common spinal rod (CSR).
A total of 36 ACCSRs and 36 CSRs from the same batch were used in this study, each with a diameter of 6.0 mm. Biomechanical tests were carried out on spinal rods for the ACCSR group and on pedicle screw-rod internal fixation systems for the CSR group. The spinal rod tests were conducted following the guidelines outlined in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F 2193, while the pedicle screw-rod internal fixation system tests adhered to ASTM F 1798-97 standards.
The stiffness of ACCSR and CSR was 1559.15 ± 50.15 and 3788.86 ± 156.45 N/mm (P < .001). ACCSR's yield load was 1345.73 (1297.90-1359.97) N, whereas CSR's was 4046.83 (3805.8-4072.53) N (P = .002). ACCSR's load in the 2.5 millionth cycle of the fatigue four-point bending test was 320 N. The axial gripping capacity of ACCSR and CSR was 1632.53 ± 165.64 and 1273.62 ± 205.63 N (P = .004). ACCSR's torsional gripping capacity was 3.45 (3.23-3.47) Nm, while CSR's was 3.27 (3.07-3.59) Nm (P = .654). The stiffness of the pedicle screws of the ACCSR and CSR group was 783.83 (775.67-798.94) and 773.14 (758.70-783.62) N/mm (P = .085). The yield loads on the pedicle screws of the ACCSR and CSR group was 1345.73 (1297.90-1359.97) and 4046.83 (3805.8-4072.53) N (P = .099).
Although ACCSR exhibited lower yield load, stiffness, and fatigue resistance compared to CSR, it demonstrated significantly higher axial gripping capacity and met the stress requirement of the human isthmus. Consequently, ACCSR presents a promising alternative to CSR for LS remediation.
为了阐明新型轴向控制压缩脊柱棒（ACCSR）与普通脊柱棒（CSR）在腰椎峡部裂（LS）中的力学性能差异。
本研究共使用了 36 根 ACCSR 和 36 根 CSR，均来自同一批次，直径均为 6.0mm。对 ACCSR 组的脊柱棒和 CSR 组的椎弓根螺钉-棒内固定系统进行生物力学测试。脊柱棒测试按照美国材料与试验协会（ASTM）F 2193 中的指南进行，而椎弓根螺钉-棒内固定系统测试则遵循 ASTM F 1798-97 标准。
ACCSR 和 CSR 的刚度分别为 1559.15±50.15 和 3788.86±156.45N/mm（P<.001）。ACCSR 的屈服载荷为 1345.73（1297.90-1359.97）N，而 CSR 的为 4046.83（3805.8-4072.53）N（P=.002）。ACCSR 在四点弯曲疲劳试验的 250 万次循环中的载荷为 320N。ACCSR 和 CSR 的轴向夹持能力分别为 1632.53±165.64 和 1273.62±205.63N（P=.004）。ACCSR 的扭转夹持能力为 3.45（3.23-3.47）Nm，而 CSR 的为 3.27（3.07-3.59）Nm（P=.654）。ACCSR 和 CSR 组椎弓根螺钉的刚度分别为 783.83（775.67-798.94）和 773.14（758.70-783.62）N/mm（P=.085）。ACCSR 和 CSR 组椎弓根螺钉的屈服载荷分别为 1345.73（1297.90-1359.97）和 4046.83（3805.8-4072.53）N（P=.099）。
尽管 ACCSR 的屈服载荷、刚度和疲劳阻力均低于 CSR，但它表现出更高的轴向夹持能力，符合人类峡部的应力要求。因此，ACCSR 为 LS 修复提供了一种有前途的 CSR 替代方案。
