Adolescent idiopathic thoracic scoliosis: apical correction with specialized pedicle hooks

Arlet, Vincent; Papin, Patrice; Marchesi, Dante; Aebi, Max

doi:10.1007/s005860050171

Cited by 17 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The average load to failure of the pedicle screws was 1,046.8 ± 173.1 N (n = 10) and 236.2 ± 39.8 N for the SPHD (P < 0.001). The average BMC of the vertebrae was 0.735 ± 0.060 g/cm 2 . The pull-out strength of the pedicle screws showed greater correlation with the BMC (R 2 = 0.4811) compared to the pull-out strength of the SPHD and the BMC (R 2 = 0.1343).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, these instruments disturb the surgical field and tend to dislodge the hook as a result of the long lever arm. Augmentation of the pedicle hook to the lamina and pedicle by a small screw has been proposed for pedicle hook fixation [1,2,[5][6][7]. These special pedicle hooks solve these disadvantages of regular hooks partially, however, fixation of a small screw in the same pedicle that is used for the pedicle hook fixation weakens the pedicle and increases the risk of pedicle fracture [6,10].…”

Section: Fixation Methods Fixation Strength (N)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A biomechanical analysis of the self-retaining pedicle hook device in posterior spinal fixation

Laar¹,

Meester²,

Smit³

et al. 2007

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regular hooks lack initial fixation to the spine during spinal deformity surgery. This runs the risk of posterior hook dislodgement during manipulation and correction of the spinal deformity, that may lead to loss of correction, hook migration, and postoperative junctional kyphosis. To prevent hook dislodgement during surgery, a self-retaining pedicle hook device (SPHD) is available that is made up of two counter-positioned hooks forming a monoblock posterior claw device. The initial segmental posterior fixation strength of a SPHD, however, is unknown. A biomechanical pull-out study of posterior segmental spinal fixation in a cadaver vertebral model was designed to investigate the axial pull-out strength for a SPHD, and compared to the pull-out strength of a pedicle screw. Ten porcine lumbar vertebral bodies were instrumented in pairs with two different instrumentation constructs after measuring the bone mineral density of each individual vertebra. The instrumentation constructs were extracted employing a material testing system using axial forces. The maximum pullout forces were recorded at the time of the construct failure. Failure of the SPHD appeared in rotation and lateral displacement, without fracturing of the posterior structures. The average pull-out strength of the SPHD was 236 N versus 1,047 N in the pedicle screws (P < 0.001). The pull-out strength of the pedicle screws showed greater correlation with the BMC compared to the SPHD (P < 0.005). The SPHD showed to provide a significant inferior segmental fixation to the posterior spine in comparison to pedicle screw fixation. Despite the beneficial characteristics of the monoblock claw construct in a SPHD, that decreases the risk of posterior hook dislodgement during surgery compared to regular hooks, the SPHD does not improve the pullout strength in such a way that it may provide a biomechanically solid alternative to pedicle screw fixation in the posterior spine.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fixation Methods Fixation Strength (N)mentioning

confidence: 99%

A biomechanical analysis of the self-retaining pedicle hook device in posterior spinal fixation

Laar¹,

Meester²,

Smit³

et al. 2007

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It permits the use of rod translation instead of rod rotation; it also allows for secure pedicle hooks with fixation screws [17]. The use of pedicle screw instrumentation in the lumbar and low thoracic spine as a foundation was a natural evolution in segmental instrumentation.…”

Section: Hybrid Constructs With Segmental Translation (Pedicle Screwsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Instrumentation alternatives for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

Jones-Quaidoo¹,

Arlet²

2007

Current Opinion in Orthopaedics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Ariet et al [24] berichteten jedoch über Korrekturen der Scheitelwirbeltranslation von 70 % unter Verwendung von modifizierten Pedikelhaken. Das Ausmaû der Korrektur der Scheitelwirbeltranslation ist zum einen abhängig von der Anzahl der implantierten Anker auf der Konkavität [11], zum anderen von der Ausrissfestigkeit des Implantates.…”

Section: Ergebnisseunclassified

Langzeitergebnisse dorsaler Instrumentationsspondylodesen mit dem Cotrel-Dubousset-Instrumentarium bei idiopathischen Thorakalskoliosen

Lepsien

Bullmann²,

Hackenberg³

et al. 2002

Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Adolescent idiopathic thoracic scoliosis: apical correction with specialized pedicle hooks

Cited by 17 publications

References 22 publications

A biomechanical analysis of the self-retaining pedicle hook device in posterior spinal fixation

A biomechanical analysis of the self-retaining pedicle hook device in posterior spinal fixation

Instrumentation alternatives for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

Langzeitergebnisse dorsaler Instrumentationsspondylodesen mit dem Cotrel-Dubousset-Instrumentarium bei idiopathischen Thorakalskoliosen

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About