Biomechanical Evaluation of a Bilateral, Dual-Rod Fixation Construct in the Thoracolumbar Spine: A Cadaveric Analysis

Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/333355
Title:
Biomechanical Evaluation of a Bilateral, Dual-Rod Fixation Construct in the Thoracolumbar Spine: A Cadaveric Analysis
Author:
Fennell, Vernard Sharif
Issue Date:
2014
Publisher:
The University of Arizona.
Rights:
Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Embargo:
Release 26-Sep-2015
Abstract:
Posterior pedicle screw and rod fixation has become standard in the treatment of oncological resections requiring stabilization, deformity correction and unstable thoracolumbar fractures. Given the high mechanical stress at the points of highest instability, some clinicians have utilized dual rods on each side to augment the construct. The added advantage of this type of construct has not been previously evaluated in-vitro. The goal of this study is to evaluate the biomechanical advantage of a dual rod construct in the thoracolumbar spine, using a burst fracture cadaveric model. Methods: Seven fresh human cadaveric (T9-L3) spines were tested in normal conditions, after an iatrogenic T12 burst fracture, and successively after laminectomy and standard two rod pedicle screw stabilization (two level above and two below) and two different dual rod overlapping constructs. Pure moment torque was applied quasistatically, while 3D motion was measured optoelectronically. Thoracolumbar range of motion was measured during flexion, extension, left / right lateral bending, and left / right axial rotation. Results: All constructs significantly stabilized the simulated burst fracture in all modes of testing. There was no statistically significant difference, however, in the ability to restrict motion between the 3 different constructs, either from T10-L2, or across the fracture segment of T11-L1. Conclusions: There does not appear to be a biomechanical advantage to using dual rods over standard single rods for immediate fixation in an unstable segment. Whether dual rods protect the construct against long-term failure is not yet known.
Type:
text; Electronic Thesis
Keywords:
Dual rod; Stabilization; Thoracolumbar; Medical Sciences; Biomechanics
Degree Name:
M.S.
Degree Level:
masters
Degree Program:
Graduate College; Surgery
Degree Grantor:
University of Arizona
Advisor:
Friese, Randall; Baaj, Ali

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.titleBiomechanical Evaluation of a Bilateral, Dual-Rod Fixation Construct in the Thoracolumbar Spine: A Cadaveric Analysisen_US
dc.creatorFennell, Vernard Sharifen_US
dc.contributor.authorFennell, Vernard Sharifen_US
dc.date.issued2014-
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.description.releaseRelease 26-Sep-2015en_US
dc.description.abstractPosterior pedicle screw and rod fixation has become standard in the treatment of oncological resections requiring stabilization, deformity correction and unstable thoracolumbar fractures. Given the high mechanical stress at the points of highest instability, some clinicians have utilized dual rods on each side to augment the construct. The added advantage of this type of construct has not been previously evaluated in-vitro. The goal of this study is to evaluate the biomechanical advantage of a dual rod construct in the thoracolumbar spine, using a burst fracture cadaveric model. Methods: Seven fresh human cadaveric (T9-L3) spines were tested in normal conditions, after an iatrogenic T12 burst fracture, and successively after laminectomy and standard two rod pedicle screw stabilization (two level above and two below) and two different dual rod overlapping constructs. Pure moment torque was applied quasistatically, while 3D motion was measured optoelectronically. Thoracolumbar range of motion was measured during flexion, extension, left / right lateral bending, and left / right axial rotation. Results: All constructs significantly stabilized the simulated burst fracture in all modes of testing. There was no statistically significant difference, however, in the ability to restrict motion between the 3 different constructs, either from T10-L2, or across the fracture segment of T11-L1. Conclusions: There does not appear to be a biomechanical advantage to using dual rods over standard single rods for immediate fixation in an unstable segment. Whether dual rods protect the construct against long-term failure is not yet known.en_US
dc.typetexten
dc.typeElectronic Thesisen
dc.subjectDual roden_US
dc.subjectStabilizationen_US
dc.subjectThoracolumbaren_US
dc.subjectMedical Sciencesen_US
dc.subjectBiomechanicsen_US
thesis.degree.nameM.S.en_US
thesis.degree.levelmastersen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineSurgeryen_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
dc.contributor.advisorFriese, Randallen_US
dc.contributor.advisorBaaj, Alien_US
dc.contributor.committeememberFriese, Randallen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberBaaj, Alien_US
dc.contributor.committeememberAnton, Reinen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberWeinand, Martinen_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.