Cunningham B W, Sefter J C, Shono Y, McAfee P C
Biomechanical Testing Laboratory, Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993 Sep 15;18(12):1677-88. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199309000-00017.
Biomechanical evaluation of twelve different spinal devices in vitro employing pedicle screws was performed using static (n = 5) and cyclical testing (n = 3) parameters. In general, the rank order of implant failures was similar between static and cyclical tests, performed at 600 N compressive load, 5 Hz, and 1 million cycles. The mean number of cycles to failure was higher for spinal instrumentation systems employing longitudinal rods than those using plates (ANOVA F = 16.94, P < .001). At 600 N, the compact Cotrel-Dubousset, TSRH, and ISOLA rod systems demonstrated mean cycles to failure ranging from 200,000 to 800,000 cycles. The remaining devices including Dyna-lok, Kirschner plate, and VSP devices had failures ranging from 50,000 to 210,000 cycles. Polyethylene cylinders representing vertebral bodies were used to eliminate the problems of biologic deterioration encountered with cadaveric spines (a full cyclical test to 1 million cycles required 56 hours), and thus to provide analysis of the weak portion of each spinal system. The failure of eleven of the twelve spinal systems occurred by fracture of a pedicle screw, most commonly at the junction of the upper screw thread and the collar (Kirschner, AO fixator, standard CD, ISOLA, and TSRH). However, in Dynalok and VSP systems, fracture of the threaded portion of the screw just posterior to the integral nuts was the most common screw fracture location. The compact CD system was the only spinal implant that consistently failed by fracture of the longitudinal spinal member (rod). The fatigue life of rod based systems was longer than plate based systems. These studies confirm the importance of anterior column load sharing (vertebral body, corpectomy bone graft) as the mean bending strength demonstrated by these implant systems was not inordinately high using this "worst case scenario" model.
使用椎弓根螺钉对12种不同的脊柱器械进行了体外生物力学评估,采用了静态测试(n = 5)和循环测试(n = 3)参数。一般来说,在600 N压缩载荷、5 Hz频率和100万次循环条件下进行的静态和循环测试中,植入物失效的排名顺序相似。采用纵向杆的脊柱内固定系统的平均失效循环次数高于使用钢板的系统(方差分析F = 16.94,P <.001)。在600 N时,紧凑型Cotrel-Dubousset、TSRH和ISOLA杆系统的平均失效循环次数在20万至80万次之间。其余器械包括Dyna-lok、克氏钢板和VSP器械的失效循环次数在5万至21万次之间。使用代表椎体的聚乙烯圆柱体来消除尸体脊柱中遇到的生物降解问题(完整的100万次循环测试需要56小时),从而对每个脊柱系统的薄弱部分进行分析。12个脊柱系统中有11个的失效是由于椎弓根螺钉断裂,最常见于上螺纹与螺帽的交界处(克氏针、AO固定器、标准CD、ISOLA和TSRH)。然而,在Dynalok和VSP系统中,紧邻整体螺母后方的螺钉螺纹部分断裂是最常见的螺钉断裂位置。紧凑型CD系统是唯一一种始终因纵向脊柱部件(杆)断裂而失效的脊柱植入物。基于杆的系统的疲劳寿命比基于钢板的系统更长。这些研究证实了前柱分担载荷(椎体、椎体次全切除植骨)的重要性,因为使用这种“最坏情况”模型时,这些植入系统显示出的平均抗弯强度并不过高。