Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Biomechanical Analysis of Revision Strategies for Rod Fracture in Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Biomechanical Analysis of Revision Strategies for Rod Fracture in Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy
Do you wish to request the book?
Biomechanical Analysis of Revision Strategies for Rod Fracture in Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Biomechanical Analysis of Revision Strategies for Rod Fracture in Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy
2011
Overview
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Pseudoarthrosis after pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) can require revision surgery due to posterior rod failure, and the stiffness of these revision constructs has not been quantified.
OBJECTIVE:
To compare the multidirectional bending stiffness of 7 revision strategies following rod failure.
METHODS:
Seven fresh-frozen human spines (T11-pelvis) were tested as follows: (1) posterior instrumentation from T12-S1 (excluding L3) with iliac fixation and L3 PSO; (2) inline connectors after rod breakage at L3 (L2 screws removed for access); (3) cross-links connecting rods above and below inline connectors; satellite rods (4) parallel, (5) 45° anterior, and (6) 45° posterior to original rods; 45°posterior with cross-links connecting (7) original and (8) satellite rods. Groups 3 to 8 were tested in random order. Nondestructive pure moment flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) tests were conducted to 7.5 Nm; 3D motion tracking monitored the primary range of motion.
RESULTS:
Addition of inline connectors alone restored stiffness in FE and LB (P > .05), but not in AR (P < .05). Satellite rods (groups 4 to 6) restored stiffness in FE and LB (P > .05), but not in AR (P < .05) and were not significantly different from one another (P > .05). The addition of cross-links (groups 3, 7, and 8) restored stiffness in all bending modes (P > .05) and were significantly greater than inline connectors alone in AR (P < .05).
CONCLUSION:
The results suggest that these revision strategies can restore stiffness without entire rod replacement. Failure of AR stiffness restoration can be mitigated with cross-links. The positioning of the satellite rods is not an important factor in strengthening the revision.
Publisher
Oxford University Press,Lippincott Williams & Wilkins,Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc
