TUHH Open Research
Help
  • Log In
    New user? Click here to register.Have you forgotten your password?
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Communities & Collections
  • Publications
  • Research Data
  • People
  • Institutions
  • Projects
  • Statistics
  1. Home
  2. TUHH
  3. Publications
  4. Hybrid instrumentation in lumbar spinal fusion : a biomechanical evaluation of three different Instrumentation techniques
 
Options

Hybrid instrumentation in lumbar spinal fusion : a biomechanical evaluation of three different Instrumentation techniques

Citation Link: https://doi.org/10.15480/882.2047
Publikationstyp
Journal Article
Date Issued
2017-04-03
Sprache
English
Author(s)
Obid, Peter  
Danyali, Reza  
Kueny, Rebecca  
Huber, Gerd  
Reichl, Michael  
Richter, Alexander  
Niemeyer, Thomas  
Morlock, Michael  
Püschel, Klaus  
Übeyli, Hüseyin  
Institut
Biomechanik M-3  
TORE-DOI
10.15480/882.2047
TORE-URI
http://hdl.handle.net/11420/2051
Journal
Global spine journal  
Volume
7
Issue
1
Start Page
47
End Page
53
Citation
Global spine journal 1 (7): 47-53 (2017)
Publisher DOI
10.1055/s-0036-1583945
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85020797403
Publisher
Sage Publications : formerly Georg Thieme Verlag
Study Design Ex vivo human cadaveric study. Objective The development or progression of adjacent segment disease (ASD) after spine stabilization and fusion is a major problem in spine surgery. Apart from optimal balancing of the sagittal profile, dynamic instrumentation is often suggested to prevent or impede ASD. Hybrid instrumentation is used to gain stabilization while allowing motion to avoid hypermobility in the adjacent segment. In this biomechanical study, the effects of two different hybrid instrumentations on human cadaver spines were evaluated and compared with a rigid instrumentation. Methods Eighteen human cadaver spines (T11-L5) were subdivided into three groups: rigid, dynamic, and hook comprising six spines each. Clinical parameters and initial mechanical characteristics were consistent among groups. All specimens received rigid fixation from L3-L5 followed by application of a free bending load of extension and flexion. The range of motion (ROM) for every segment was evaluated. For the rigid group, further rigid fixation from L1-L5 was applied. A dynamic Elaspine system (Spinelab AG, Winterthur, Switzerland) was applied from L1 to L3 for the dynamic group, and the hook group was instrumented with additional laminar hooks at L1-L3. ROM was then evaluated again. Results There was no significant difference in ROM among the three instrumentation techniques. Conclusion Based on this data, the intended advantage of a hybrid or dynamic instrumentation might not be achieved
Subjects
degenerative lumbar spine
lumbar fusion
adjacent segment disease
dynamic stabilization
hybrid instrumentation
Elaspine
laminar hooks
DDC Class
610: Medizin
Lizenz
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/de/
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name

s-0036-1583945.pdf

Size

845.95 KB

Format

Adobe PDF

TUHH
Weiterführende Links
  • Contact
  • Send Feedback
  • Cookie settings
  • Privacy policy
  • Impress
DSpace Software

Built with DSpace-CRIS software - Extension maintained and optimized by 4Science
Design by effective webwork GmbH

  • Deutsche NationalbibliothekDeutsche Nationalbibliothek
  • ORCiD Member OrganizationORCiD Member Organization
  • DataCiteDataCite
  • Re3DataRe3Data
  • OpenDOAROpenDOAR
  • OpenAireOpenAire
  • BASE Bielefeld Academic Search EngineBASE Bielefeld Academic Search Engine
Feedback