The Case for Pedicle Fixation of the Lumbar Spine

Ransom, Nicholas A; Rocca, S. La; Thalgott, John S.

doi:10.1097/00007632-199412000-00020

Cited by 28 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Various fusion techniques have been described with various reports on fusion rates; therefore, a clear-cut recommendation for the most reliable method of fusion is still not available. Instrumented posterolateral fusion is an accepted method of spinal fusion [10,17]; however, persistence of discogenic pain albeit solid posterior fusion has been previously reported [15]. Weinstein et al reported that the outer third of the annulus of the vertebral disc has nociceptive capability, and this could account for the discogenic back pain attributable to internal disc disruption [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combined anterior interbody fusion and posterior pedicle screw fixation in patients with degenerative lumbar disc disease

Masry

Badawy

Rajendran

et al. 2004

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We reviewed 47 consecutive patients with degenerative lumbar disc disease. All patients were treated by anterior interbody fusion using an autogenous iliac bone graft in combination with posterior pedicle fixation but without a posterior fusion. There were 32 men and 15 women with a mean age of 44 (range 23-56) years. One third (n=15) of the patients had previous surgery. We saw complications in six patients including two with vascular injury. The mean follow-up was 2.2 years. Seventy-two per cent of the cases had a satisfactory clinical outcome, and the overall fusion rate was 97%.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combined anterior interbody fusion and posterior pedicle screw fixation in patients with degenerative lumbar disc disease

Masry

Badawy

Rajendran

et al. 2004

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…62 Problems associated with pedicle screws include loss of fixation, improper placement, fatigue and bending failure, dural tears, cerebral spinal fluid leaks, nerve root injury, and infection. [63][64][65] Bending or breakage is the most common type of pedicle screw failure. 66 Screw diameter, screw length, insertional depth, orientation, and cross-link conduits all affect bending and breakage.…”

Section: Pedicle Screwsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomaterials in Spinal Implants: A Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim to find the perfect biomaterial for spinal implant has been the focus of spinal research since the 1800s. Spinal surgery and the devices used therein have undergone a constant evolution in order to meet the needs of surgeons who have continued to further understand the biomechanical principles of spinal stability and have improved as new technologies and materials are available for production use. The perfect biomaterial would be one that is biologically inert/compatible, has a Young's modulus similar to that of the bone where it is implanted, high tensile strength, stiffness, fatigue strength, and low artifacts on imaging. Today, the materials that have been most commonly used include stainless steel, titanium, cobalt chrome, nitinol (a nickel titanium alloy), tantalum, and polyetheretherketone in rods, screws, cages, and plates. Current advancements such as 3-dimensional printing, the ProDisc-L and ProDisc-C, the ApiFix, and the Mobi-C which all aim to improve range of motion, reduce pain, and improve patient satisfaction. Spine surgeons should remain vigilant regarding the current literature and technological advancements in spinal materials and procedures. The progression of spinal implant materials for cages, rods, screws, and plates with advantages and disadvantages for each material will be discussed.

show abstract

“…Screw pullout is an important source of implant failure and, when encountered, can result in loss of reduction, malunion, and nonunion. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] The axial pullout strength of screws, defined as the tensile force needed to extract the intact screw from bone or other materials, is determined by the ability of the bone to equilibrate tension in the screw core with a cylindrical surface of shearing stress corresponding to the outer diameter of the screw threads. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Pullout strength depends primarily on the quality and shear strength of the bone, major diameter of the screw, and the length of thread engagement, while minor thread diameter and thread pitch play a less pronounced role.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%