Cargando…

A biomechanical comparison between cortical bone trajectory fixation and pedicle screw fixation

PURPOSE: There have been several reports on the pullout strength of cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws, but only one study has reviewed the stability of functional spine units using the CBT method. The purpose of this study was to compare vertebral stability after CBT fixation with that after ped...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Oshino, Hiroki, Sakakibara, Toshihiko, Inaba, Tadashi, Yoshikawa, Takamasa, Kato, Takaya, Kasai, Yuichi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4537537/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26275401
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-015-0270-0
_version_ 1782385902276837376
author Oshino, Hiroki
Sakakibara, Toshihiko
Inaba, Tadashi
Yoshikawa, Takamasa
Kato, Takaya
Kasai, Yuichi
author_facet Oshino, Hiroki
Sakakibara, Toshihiko
Inaba, Tadashi
Yoshikawa, Takamasa
Kato, Takaya
Kasai, Yuichi
author_sort Oshino, Hiroki
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: There have been several reports on the pullout strength of cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws, but only one study has reviewed the stability of functional spine units using the CBT method. The purpose of this study was to compare vertebral stability after CBT fixation with that after pedicle screw (PS) fixation. METHODS: In this study, 20 lumbar spine (L5–6) specimens were assigned to two groups: the CBT model group that underwent CBT screw fixation (n = 10) and the PS model group that underwent pedicle screw fixation (n = 10). Using a six-axis material testing machine, bend and rotation tests were conducted on each model. The angular displacement from the time of no load to the time of maximum torque was defined as range of motion (ROM), and then, the mean ROM in the bend and rotation tests and the mean rate of relative change of ROM in both the bend and rotation tests were compared between the CBT and PS groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the CBT and PS groups with regard to the mean ROMs and the mean rate of relative change of ROMs in both the bend and rotation tests. CONCLUSION: Intervertebral stability after CBT fixation was similar to that after PS fixation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4537537
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45375372015-08-16 A biomechanical comparison between cortical bone trajectory fixation and pedicle screw fixation Oshino, Hiroki Sakakibara, Toshihiko Inaba, Tadashi Yoshikawa, Takamasa Kato, Takaya Kasai, Yuichi J Orthop Surg Res Research Article PURPOSE: There have been several reports on the pullout strength of cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws, but only one study has reviewed the stability of functional spine units using the CBT method. The purpose of this study was to compare vertebral stability after CBT fixation with that after pedicle screw (PS) fixation. METHODS: In this study, 20 lumbar spine (L5–6) specimens were assigned to two groups: the CBT model group that underwent CBT screw fixation (n = 10) and the PS model group that underwent pedicle screw fixation (n = 10). Using a six-axis material testing machine, bend and rotation tests were conducted on each model. The angular displacement from the time of no load to the time of maximum torque was defined as range of motion (ROM), and then, the mean ROM in the bend and rotation tests and the mean rate of relative change of ROM in both the bend and rotation tests were compared between the CBT and PS groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the CBT and PS groups with regard to the mean ROMs and the mean rate of relative change of ROMs in both the bend and rotation tests. CONCLUSION: Intervertebral stability after CBT fixation was similar to that after PS fixation. BioMed Central 2015-08-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4537537/ /pubmed/26275401 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-015-0270-0 Text en © Oshino et al. 2015 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Oshino, Hiroki
Sakakibara, Toshihiko
Inaba, Tadashi
Yoshikawa, Takamasa
Kato, Takaya
Kasai, Yuichi
A biomechanical comparison between cortical bone trajectory fixation and pedicle screw fixation
title A biomechanical comparison between cortical bone trajectory fixation and pedicle screw fixation
title_full A biomechanical comparison between cortical bone trajectory fixation and pedicle screw fixation
title_fullStr A biomechanical comparison between cortical bone trajectory fixation and pedicle screw fixation
title_full_unstemmed A biomechanical comparison between cortical bone trajectory fixation and pedicle screw fixation
title_short A biomechanical comparison between cortical bone trajectory fixation and pedicle screw fixation
title_sort biomechanical comparison between cortical bone trajectory fixation and pedicle screw fixation
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4537537/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26275401
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-015-0270-0
work_keys_str_mv AT oshinohiroki abiomechanicalcomparisonbetweencorticalbonetrajectoryfixationandpediclescrewfixation
AT sakakibaratoshihiko abiomechanicalcomparisonbetweencorticalbonetrajectoryfixationandpediclescrewfixation
AT inabatadashi abiomechanicalcomparisonbetweencorticalbonetrajectoryfixationandpediclescrewfixation
AT yoshikawatakamasa abiomechanicalcomparisonbetweencorticalbonetrajectoryfixationandpediclescrewfixation
AT katotakaya abiomechanicalcomparisonbetweencorticalbonetrajectoryfixationandpediclescrewfixation
AT kasaiyuichi abiomechanicalcomparisonbetweencorticalbonetrajectoryfixationandpediclescrewfixation
AT oshinohiroki biomechanicalcomparisonbetweencorticalbonetrajectoryfixationandpediclescrewfixation
AT sakakibaratoshihiko biomechanicalcomparisonbetweencorticalbonetrajectoryfixationandpediclescrewfixation
AT inabatadashi biomechanicalcomparisonbetweencorticalbonetrajectoryfixationandpediclescrewfixation
AT yoshikawatakamasa biomechanicalcomparisonbetweencorticalbonetrajectoryfixationandpediclescrewfixation
AT katotakaya biomechanicalcomparisonbetweencorticalbonetrajectoryfixationandpediclescrewfixation
AT kasaiyuichi biomechanicalcomparisonbetweencorticalbonetrajectoryfixationandpediclescrewfixation