Top

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

Published in:

01-10-2008 | Orthopaedic Surgery

Transpedicular plate fixator as effective system of spine stabilisation: biomechanical characteristics

Authors: Piotr Pawłowski, Maciej Araszkiewicz, Tomasz Topoliński, Dariusz Mątewski

Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Issue 10/2008

Abstract

Introduction

Zespol fixator, which was created in Poland by Ramatowski and Granowski, has an angular stable connection of screws and plate. These properties of this plate fixator, that is effective and not an expensive system of osteosynthesis of shaft of long bone widely used in Poland, impelled us to adapt it as a transpedicular plate fixator of spine.

Aim

The aim of our in vitro study was to measure loads acting on spine stabilized by transpedicular plate fixator and to determine if its stability is comparable with uninjured spine. We also hypothesized that the spine stability with examined fixator had similar properties as spine fixators constructed with screws and rods.

Materials and methods

We tested its biomechanical properties and compared it with a CD device by using specimens of four human spines. Each spine with damage induced in laboratory conditions was stabilised by one of those stabilisers in one (L4–L5) or two (Th12–L2) motion segments and subsequently were subject to load. The spines without and with one of transpedicular stabilization were subject to an unsymmetrical shift of +3/−4 mm for extension–compression and symmetrical shift for bending, in the frontal plane (+0.14/−0.14 rad) and the sagittal plane (+0.11/−0.11 rad), respectively.

Results

Loads during extension–compression and bending in the sagittal plane were similar to the uninjured spine for short stabilization by using both stabilizers and amounted to 92.3 and 98.26%, respectively, of the load range sums of healthy spines. For long stabilization these loads amounted to 93.2 and 84.4%, respectively. Only following short and long stabilization for both devices in case of bending in the frontal plane the increase in loads up to 144.2 and 163.3% of the range sums of uninjured spines was achieved.

Conclusion

It corroborates the fact that the application of the modified Zespol device for spine stabilisation provides the possibility of restoring its load transfer capacity similar to that in the healthy spine and comparable with the CD device.

Abumi K, Panjabi MM, Duranceau J (1989) Biomechanical evaluation of spinal fixation devices. III. Stability provided by six spinal fixation devices and interbody bone graft. Spine 14(11):1249–1255PubMedCrossRef

Asazuma T, Stokes JA, Moreland MS, Suzuki N (1990) Intersegmental spinal flexibility with lumbosacral instrumentation. An in vitro biomechanical investigation. Spine 15(11):1153–1158PubMedCrossRef

Ashman RB, Galpin RD, Corin JD, Johnston CE 2nd (1989) Biomechanical analysis of pedicle screw instrumentation systems in corpectomy model. Spine 14(12):1398–1405PubMedCrossRef

Boos N, Marchesi D, Aebi M (1992) Survivorship analysis of pedicular fixation systems in the treatment of degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine: a comparison of Cotrel–Dubousset instrumentation and the AO internal fixator. J Spinal Disord 5(4):403–409PubMedCrossRef

Brodke DS, Bachus KN, Mohr RA, Nguyen BK (2001) Segmental pedicle screw fixation or cross-links in multilevel lumbar constructs: a biomechanical analysis. Spine J 1(5):373–379PubMedCrossRef

Dickmann CA, Fessler RG, McMillan M, Haid RW (1992) Transpedicular screw-rod fixation of the lumbar spine: operative technique and outcome in 104 cases. J Neurosurg 77(6):860–870

Eger W, Kluger P, Claes L, Wilke HJ (1999) Characteristics of an extended internal fixation system for polysegmental transpedicular reduction and stabilisation of the thoracic, lumbar, and lumbosacral spine. Eur Spine J 8(1):61–69PubMedCrossRef

Ferguson RL, Tencer AF, Woodard P, Allen BL (1988) Biomechanical comparisons of spinal fracture models and the stabilizing effects of posterior instrumentations. Spine 13(5):453–460PubMedCrossRef

Granowski R, Ramotowski W, Kaminski E, Pilawski K (1984) [“Zespol”—a new type of osteosynthesis. I. An internal self-compressing stabilizer of bone fragments]. Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol 49(4):301–305PubMed

10.

Gurr KR, McAfee PC, Shih CM (1988) Biomechanical analysis of anterior and posterior instrumentation systems after corpectomy. A calf-spine model. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 70(8):1182–1191

11.

Gurr KR, McAfee PC, Shih CM (1988) Biomechanical analysis of posterior instrumentation systems after decompressive laminectomy. An unstable calf-spine model. J Bone Joint Surg Am 70(5):680–691PubMed

12.

Gwon JK, Chen J, Lim TH, Han JS, Weinstein JN, Goel VK (1991) In vitro comparative biomechanical analysis of transpedicular screw instrumentations in the lumbar region of the human spine. J Spinal Disord 4(4):437–443PubMed

13.

Lim TH, An HS, Hong JH, Ahn JY, You JW, Eck J, McGrady LM (1997) Biomechanical evaluation of anterior and posterior fixations in an unstable calf spine model. Spine 22(3):261–266PubMedCrossRef

14.

Lund T, Nydegger T, Rathonyi G, Nolte LP, Schlenzka D, Oxland TR (2003) Three-dimensional stabilisation provided by the external spinal fixator compared to two internal fixation devices: a biomechanical in vitro flexibility study. Eur Spine J 12(5):474–479PubMedCrossRef

15.

Marqulies JY, Thampi SP, Bitan FD, Cora DC (1999) Practical biomechanical considerations for spine implant testing. Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol 64(3):347–364

16.

Nachemson AL (1981) Disc pressure measurements. Spine 6(1):93–97PubMedCrossRef

17.

Pawlowski P, Topolinski T, Wocianiec R (2006) Grip for in vitro strength tests of spines or spine-internal spine fixator sets. Eng Mech 13(1):41–48

18.

Panjabi MM (1988) Biomechanical evaluation of spinal fixation devices: I. A conceptual framework. Spine 13(10):1129–1134PubMed

19.

Panjabi MM, Krag M, Summers D, Videman T (1985) Biomechanical time-tolerance of fresh cadaveric human spine specimens. J Orthop Res 3(3):292–300PubMedCrossRef

20.

Pfeiffer M, Hoffman H, Goel VK, Weinstein JN, Griss P (1997) In vitro testing of a new transpedicular stabilization technique. Eur Spine J 6(4):249–255PubMedCrossRef

21.

Przybyszewski J, Podraza Z, Ziomek M, Karas W (1992) Universal hip fixator “Zespol”. Construction of the fixator, principles of function, instrumentation, surgical technique, indications and results of treatment. Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol 57(1–3):256–262PubMed

22.

Ramotowski W, Granowski R, Pilawski K, Cieplak J, Karas W (1984) “Zespol”–a new type of osteosynthesis. II. Indications, instruments and surgical technics. Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol 49(4):307–311PubMed

23.

Ramotowski W, Granowski R (1984) “Zespol”–a new type of osteosynthesis. III. Results of treatment. Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol 49(4):313–318PubMed

24.

Ramotowski W, Granowski R. (1991) Zespol. An original method of stable osteosynthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 272:67–75PubMed

25.

Rohlmann A, Bergmann G, Graichen F, Mayer HM (1995) Telemeterized load measurement using instrumented spinal internal fixators in a patient with degenerative instability. Spine 20(24):2683–2689PubMedCrossRef

26.

Rohlmann A, Zander T, Bergmann G (2005) Comparison of the biomechanical effects of posterior and anterior spine-stabilizing implants. Eur Spine J 14(5):445–453PubMedCrossRef

27.

Shono Y, Kaneda K, Yamamoto I (1991) A biomechanical analysis of Zielke, Kaneda, and Cotrel–Dubousset instrumentation in thoracolumbar scoliosis. A calf spine model. Spine 16(11):1305–1311PubMedCrossRef

28.

Steffee AD, Brantigan JW (1993) The variable screw placement spinal fixation system. Report of a prospective study of 250 patients enrolled in food and drug administration clinical trials. Spine 18(9):1160–1172PubMedCrossRef

29.

Szostek S, Szust A, Pezowicz C, Majcher P, Będziński R (2004) Animal models in biomechanical spine investigations. Bull Vet Inst 48(2):163–168

30.

Wilke HJ, Jungkunz B, Wenger K, Claes LE (1998) Spinal segment range of motion as a function of in vitro test conditions: effects of exposure period, accumulated cycles, angular-deformation rate, and moisture condition. Anat Rec 251(1):15–19PubMedCrossRef

31.

Wilke HJ, Krischak ST, Wenger KH, Claes LE (1997) Load-displacement properties of the thoracolumbar calf spine: experimental results and comparison to known human data. Eur Spine J 6(2):129–137PubMedCrossRef

32.

Zucherman J, Hsu K, White A, Wynne G (1988) Early results of spinal fusion using variable spine plating system. Spine 13(5):570–579PubMedCrossRef

Title: Transpedicular plate fixator as effective system of spine stabilisation: biomechanical characteristics
Authors: Piotr Pawłowski
Maciej Araszkiewicz
Tomasz Topoliński
Dariusz Mątewski
Publication date: 01-10-2008
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery / Issue 10/2008
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Electronic ISSN: 1434-3916
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-008-0627-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Transpedicular plate fixator as effective system of spine stabilisation: biomechanical characteristics

Abstract

Introduction

Aim

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Aim

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2008

Aneurysmal bone cyst of spine: a review of literature

Solitary fibrous tumor in the cervical spine with destructive vertebral involvement: a case report and review of the literature

Outcome after temporary physeal stapling for knee valgus deformity in children with JIA

Primary reconstruction with digital ray transposition after resection of malignant tumor

Elevated serum cardiac troponin I in older patients with hip fracture: incidence and prognostic significance

Good survival of uncemented tapered stems for failed intertrochanteric osteotomy: a mean 16 year follow-up study in 45 patients