Zou D, Yoo J U, Edwards W T, Donovan D M, Chang K W, Bayley J C, Fredrickson B E, Yuan H A
Department of Orthopedics, SUNY Health Science Center, Syracuse.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993 Feb;18(2):195-203.
The adequate reduction of vertebral burst fractures is dependent on successful application of distractive forces in combination with the restoration of normal spinal lordosis. However, the optimal sequence of distraction in comparison to distraction plus lordosis in the anatomic restoration of the fractured thoracolumbar spine has not been described. Burst fractures of the L1 vertebra were first created and the reduced in vitro using three differing reduction techniques. In six fresh human cadaver spine specimens, the mean fracture severity based on the degree of canal compromise was 31% (SD +/- 20%) after fracture. Reductions were performed using the AO Fixator Intern, the Reduction Fixation (RF) Device, and the Steffee plate systems following standard clinical techniques. The AO Fixator Intern provided independent but variable control of distraction and lordosis, the RF device provided variable distraction with independent, but preset, correction of lordosis and the Steffee system provided set distraction and stabilization. Both the AO and RF devices restored the lordosis (7.6 degrees +/- 5.2 degrees and 9.7 degrees +/- 4.5 degrees, respectively) better than the Steffee plate system (0 degrees +/- 1.6 degrees). However, the AO device provided poorest restoration of the posterior vertebral body height (92% vs 96% for the RF device and 99% for the Steffee plate). The RF device, which restored both lordosis and posterior vertebral body height to the near anatomic prefracture level, provided significantly better canal clearance (9% +/- 8%) than the other techniques, P < 0.05. The study demonstrates that instrumentation systems that provide independent correction of distraction and lordosis can best restore anatomic alignment, with indirect neurodecompression of the compromised spinal canal.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
椎体爆裂骨折的充分复位取决于牵张力量的成功应用以及正常脊柱前凸的恢复。然而,在胸腰椎骨折的解剖复位中,与牵张加前凸相比,最佳的牵张顺序尚未见描述。首先造成L1椎体爆裂骨折,然后在体外使用三种不同的复位技术进行复位。在6个新鲜的人体尸体脊柱标本中,骨折后基于椎管受压程度的平均骨折严重程度为31%(标准差±20%)。按照标准临床技术,使用AO内固定器、复位固定(RF)装置和Steffee钢板系统进行复位。AO内固定器可独立但可变地控制牵张和前凸,RF装置可进行可变牵张,并对前凸进行独立但预设的矫正,Steffee系统提供固定牵张和稳定。AO和RF装置恢复前凸的效果(分别为7.6°±5.2°和9.7°±4.5°)均优于Steffee钢板系统(0°±1.6°)。然而,AO装置对椎体后缘高度的恢复最差(RF装置为96%,Steffee钢板为99%,AO装置为92%)。RF装置将前凸和椎体后缘高度均恢复至接近骨折前的解剖水平,其椎管减压效果(9%±8%)明显优于其他技术,P<0.05。该研究表明,能够独立矫正牵张和前凸的内固定系统能够最佳地恢复解剖对线,并对受压的椎管进行间接神经减压。(摘要截稿于250字)