Plating of Thoracic, Thoracolumbar, and Lumbar Injuries with Pedicle Screw Plates

Roy-Camille, R; Saillant, G; Mazel, C.

doi:10.1016/s0030-5898(20)30425-9

Cited by 267 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Patients with complete neurologic deficit where surgical Stabilization allows more rapid mobilization and early rehabilitation. 3,4,5 OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE: All patients were operated in the prone position. Hips and knees were moderately flexed to prevent stretching of the nerve roots.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Study of Functional Outcome of Unstable Thoraco Lumbar Spine Injuries Treated With Moss - Miami (Pedicle Screws) Instrumentation

K¹,

Bangalore²,

Reddy³

et al. 2015

jebmh

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the increased incidence of road traffic accidents and industrial trauma, there has been a significant increase in the number of thoraco-lumbar spinal injuries. Decompression and early fusion with instrumentation is a generally accepted treatment method for patients with unstable injuries and with a neurological deficit; it helps in early mobilization, and avoids the complications of prolonged recumbency. The pedicle screw-rod system is versatile in that it stabilizes the three columns of the spine. The pedicle is the strongest part of the vertebra and is the force nucleus of the vertebral body. Through the pedicle all forces are transmitted from posterior elements to the vertebral body. Therefore, by fixation of the vertebral body through the pedicle, significant strength of the entire vertebral complex is possible. In our study we operated on 28 patients of unstable thoraco-lumbar injuries, where we performed Moss-Miami instrumentation (pedicular screw rod fixation). All the cases were followed up for a minimum of one year. In all these cases we had favorable results. There was a reduction of an average pre-op kyphotic angle of 15.8º to an average post-op kyphotic angle of 6.6º. We also noted significant neurological improvement as assessed by Frankel grading. In this study, we found that the transpedicular fixation with screws and rods system is effective in the treatment of unstable thoracolumbar spinal injuries. Although the prognosis of the neurological injury seems to be largely determined at the time of trauma, surgical decompression will definitely improve the neurologic deficit in incomplete cord injuries. Cases where there is complete neurologic deficit with no hope for recovery, will also be benefited from surgical fixation in terms of early mobilization and rehabilitation.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Study of Functional Outcome of Unstable Thoraco Lumbar Spine Injuries Treated With Moss - Miami (Pedicle Screws) Instrumentation

K¹,

Bangalore²,

Reddy³

et al. 2015

jebmh

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(2) BC group: Bone cement screws were used for xation, and the intersection point of the longitudinal midline of the facet joint and the transverse midline was the entry point, and the entry direction was perpendicular to the coronal plane of the vertebral body and at an Angle of 10°-15° to the sagittal plane of the vertebral body. After the implantation of bone cement screws, bone cement was prepared, and bone cement was injected into the vertebral body through a matching syringe assisted by C-arm machine [12] . 5.Biomechanical testing 5.1Lumbar range of motion The specimens were placed in the spine biomechanical material testing machine, and infrared sensors were xed in front of the upper and lower vertebral bodies of the specimens.…”

Section: Implantation Of Internal Xationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical Analysis of Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Versus Bone Cement Screw for Fixation in Porcine Spinal Low Bone Mass Model

Wang

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo compare the biomechanics of cortical bone trajectory screw(CBT) and bone cement screw(BC) in isolated porcine spinal low bone mass model.MethodTen porcine spines with 3 segments were treated with EDTA decalcification. After 8 weeks, all the models met the criteria of low bone mass.Ten specimens were randomly divided into two groups, one group was implanted with CBT screw(CBT group) and the other group was implanted with bone cement screw(BC group).The biomechanical material testing machine was used to compare the porcine spine activities of the two groups in flexion, extension, bending and axial rotation, and then insertional torque,pull-out force and anti-compression force of two groups were compared.Independent-sample t test was used for comparison between groups.ResultTen 3 segments porcine spine models with low bone mass were established, the bone mineral density of all models was lower than 0.75g/cm2. The flexion, extension, bending and axial rotation angle of CBT group and BC group respectively were 7.1±1.3°,4.3±0.8°,3.4±0.8°,6.8±0.7°and 6.4±0.8°,4.5±0.5°,3.5±0.5°,6.8±0.8°,there was no significant difference between the two groups,P＞0.05.However, there were significant differences between the two groups and the control group,P＜0.01.The insertional torque of the CBT group and BC group respectively were 0.43±0.09N-m and 0.30±0.07N-m (P=0.03), and the screw pull-out force were 462.67±72.51N and 325.60±77.27N (P=0.021), respectively. There were significant differences between the two groups.The anti-compression forces between the two groups were 3561.81±522.7N and 3586.80±607.42N, respectively, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P =0.946).ConclusionThe insertional torque and pull-out force of the CBT were higher than those of the BC in the isolated low bone porcine spine model, and the range of motion and anti-compression ability of model were similar between the two fixation methods.

show abstract

“…(2) BC group: Bone cement screws were used for xation, and the intersection point of the longitudinal midline of the facet joint and the transverse midline was the entry point, and the entry direction was perpendicular to the coronal plane of the vertebral body and at an Angle of 10°-15° to the sagittal plane of the vertebral body. After the implantation of bone cement screws, bone cement was prepared, and bone cement was injected into the vertebral body through a matching syringe assisted by C-arm machine [12] . 5.Biomechanical testing 5.1 Lumbar range of motion: The specimens were placed in the spine biomechanical material testing machine, and infrared sensors were xed in front of the upper and lower vertebral bodies of the specimens.…”

Section: Implantation Of Internal Xationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical Analysis of Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Versus Bone Cement Screw For Fixation In Porcine Spinal Low Bone Mass Model

Wang

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare the biomechanics of cortical bone trajectory screw(CBT) and bone cement screw(BC) in isolated porcine spinal low bone mass model.Method: Ten porcine spines with 3 segments were treated with EDTA decalcification. After 8 weeks, all the models met the criteria of low bone mass. Ten specimens were randomly divided into two groups, one group was implanted with CBT screw(CBT group) and the other group was implanted with bone cement screw(BC group).The biomechanical material testing machine was used to compare the porcine spine activities of the two groups in flexion, extension, bending and axial rotation, and then insertional torque, pull-out force and anti-compression force of two groups were compared. Independent-sample t test was used for comparison between groups.Result: Ten 3 segments porcine spine models with low bone mass were established, the bone mineral density of all models was lower than 0.75g/cm2. The flexion, extension, bending and axial rotation angle of CBT group and BC group respectively were 7.1±1.3°,4.3±0.8°,3.4±0.8°,6.8±0.7°and 6.4±0.8°, 4.5±0.5°, 3.5±0.5°, 6.8±0.8°, there was no significant difference between the two groups,P＞0.05.However, there were significant differences between the two groups and the control group,P＜0.01.The insertional torque of the CBT group and BC group respectively were 0.43±0.09N-m and 0.30±0.07N-m (P=0.03), and the screw pull-out force were 462.67±72.51N and 325.60±77.27N (P=0.021), respectively. There were significant differences between the two groups. The anti-compression forces between the two groups were 3561.81±522.7N and 3586.80±607.42N, respectively, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P =0.946).Conclusion: The insertional torque and pull-out force of the CBT were higher than those of the BC in the isolated low bone porcine spine model, and the range of motion and anti-compression ability of model were similar between the two fixation methods.

show abstract

Plating of Thoracic, Thoracolumbar, and Lumbar Injuries with Pedicle Screw Plates

Cited by 267 publications

References 1 publication

A Study of Functional Outcome of Unstable Thoraco Lumbar Spine Injuries Treated With Moss - Miami (Pedicle Screws) Instrumentation

A Study of Functional Outcome of Unstable Thoraco Lumbar Spine Injuries Treated With Moss - Miami (Pedicle Screws) Instrumentation

Biomechanical Analysis of Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Versus Bone Cement Screw for Fixation in Porcine Spinal Low Bone Mass Model

Biomechanical Analysis of Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Versus Bone Cement Screw For Fixation In Porcine Spinal Low Bone Mass Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About