Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.15480/882.2047
Publisher DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1583945
Title: Hybrid instrumentation in lumbar spinal fusion : a biomechanical evaluation of three different Instrumentation techniques
Language: English
Authors: Obid, Peter 
Danyali, Reza 
Kueny, Rebecca 
Huber, Gerd 
Reichl, Michael 
Richter, Alexander 
Niemeyer, Thomas 
Morlock, Michael 
Püschel, Klaus 
Übeyli, Hüseyin 
Keywords: degenerative lumbar spine;lumbar fusion;adjacent segment disease;dynamic stabilization;hybrid instrumentation;Elaspine;laminar hooks
Issue Date: 3-Apr-2017
Publisher: Sage Publications : formerly Georg Thieme Verlag
Source: Global spine journal 1 (7): 47-53 (2017)
Journal or Series Name: Global spine journal 
Abstract (english): 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
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11420/2051
DOI: 10.15480/882.2047
ISSN: 2192-5690
Institute: Biomechanik M-3 
Type: (wissenschaftlicher) Artikel
Appears in Collections:Publications (tub.dok)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
s-0036-1583945.pdfVerlags-PDF845,95 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show full item record

Page view(s)

53
Last Week
3
Last month
2
checked on Jul 20, 2019

Download(s)

31
checked on Jul 20, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check

Export

This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons