Biomechanic comparison of 2-column and 3-column thoracolumbar injury after short segmental fixation
YANG Yong, JU Lin, JIANG Jian-Meng, DIAO Wei-Dong, JI Dong-Bin
Chinese Journal of Clinical Anatomy ›› 2012, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (2) : 225-228.
Biomechanic comparison of 2-column and 3-column thoracolumbar injury after short segmental fixation
Objective To compare biomechanical stability of 2-column and 3-column thoracolumbar injury after short segmental fixation. Methods Eight fresh frozen porcine thoracolumbar spine specimens (T13-L5) were collected, and divided to four groups: intact group (A), injury group(B), 2-column injury fixation group(C), and 3-column injury fixation group(D). The stability of four groups at flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation were measured respectively. Two-column injury model was created using dropping technique. For three-column injury model, The excision of supra-spinous ligament, inter-spinous ligament, ligamenta flava and zygapophysial joint was performed on the basis of two-column injury. Results The ROMs of group D at extension, lateral bending and rotation directions were signifcantly increased compared to that of group C (P<0.05), as well ROM of group D at axial rotation increased signifcantly compared to that of group A (P<0.05). The ROMs of group B at all directions increased significantly compared to group A (P<0.05), and ROM of group C decreased significantly compared to group B (P<0.05). The compression stiffness of group D decreased significantly compared to group C (P<0.05), and that of group C decreased significantly compared to group B (P<0.05). The compression stiffness of group D had no difference compared to group B (P>0.05). Conclusions Compare to the three-column injury, the short-segment fixation is more suitable for keeping mechanic stability of the 2-column injury of thoracolumbar level.
Two-column injury / Three-column injury / Biomechanics / Stability / Compressive Stiffness
[1] Denis F.The three column spine and its significance in the classification of acute thoracolumbar spinal injuries
[J].Spine,1983, 8(8):817-831.
[2] Kallemeier PM, Beaubien BP, Buttermann GR, et al. In vitro analysis of anterior and posterior fixation in an experimental unstable burst fracture model
[J]. J Spinal Disord Tech,2008, 21(3):216-224.
[3] Wang XY, Dai LY, Xu HZ, et al. The load-sharing classi?cation of thoracolumbar fractures: an in vitro biomechanical validation
[J]. Spine,2007,32(11):1214–1219.
[4] 王向阳,池永龙,徐华梓,等. 脊柱前中柱稳定性对椎弓根螺钉内固定器前屈压缩刚度的影响及其意义
[J].骨与关节损伤杂志,2003,18(9):614-616.
[5] Lazaro BC, Deniz FE, Brasiliense LB, et al. Biomechanics of thoracic short versus long fixation after 3-column injury:Laboratory investigation
[J].J Neurosurg Spine,2011,14(2):226–234.
[6] 朱旻宇,黄其杉,池永龙,等.对带横连杆的椎弓根钉固定胸腰段脊柱骨折(T11～L3)的稳定性评价
[J].医用生物力学,2010,25(2):100-104.
[7] Anekstein Y, Brosh T, Mirovsky Y.Intermediate screws in short segment pedicular fixation for thoracic and lumbar fractures:a biomechanical study
[J].J Spinal Disord Tech, 2007,20(1):72-77
[8] Yu SW, Fan KF, Tseng IC, et.al. Surgical outcomes of short-segment fixation for thoracolumbar fracture dislocation
[J].Chang Gung Med J ,2002,25:253-259
[9] 袁 强,田 伟，张贵林,等.骨折椎垂直应力螺钉在胸腰椎骨折中的应用
[J].中华骨科杂志,2006,26(4):217-222
[10]Mahar A, Kim C,Wedemeyer M, et al. Short-segment fixation of lumbar burst fractures using pedicle fixation at the level of the fracture
[J]. Spine, 2007,32(14):1503–1507.
[11]Farrokhi MR, Razmkon A, Maghami Z, et al. Inclusion of the fracture level in short segment ?xation of thoracolumbar fractures
[J]. Eur Spine J ,2010, 19(10):1651–1656.
[12]Kaigle AM, Holm SH, Hansson TH.Volvo award winner in biomechanical studies. Kinematic behavior of the porcine lumbar spine:a chronic lesion model
[J].Spine, 1997,22(24):2796-2806.
[13]Pfeiffer M, Griss P, Franke P, et al.Degeneration model of the porcine lumbar motion segment: effects of various intradiscal procedures
[J]. Eur Spine J, 1994,3(1):8-16.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
