Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To compare screw strains adjacent to a simulated spinal osteotomy between segmental compression (SC) and cantilever bending (CB) to SC and CB performed over a construct-to-construct lateral accessory rod (“rail”).</p> Methods <p>10 PCF foam blocks were instrumented with 6 polyaxial pedicle screws, each with a linear strain gage. SC and CB were performed over a traditional construct (midline rods) or over a construct-to-construct lateral accessory rod. Real-time screw strains were collected and peak strains were reported and compared between corrective techniques.</p> Results <p>Strains in screws closest to the osteotomy were significantly less during “rail” compression compared to traditional SC. Maximum screw strains were significantly lower during “rail” SC (<i>p</i> &lt; .001) and CB (<i>p</i> = 0.003) compared to traditional SC and CB, respectively. Total screw strain was more evenly distributed over all 6 screws during “rail” compression and CB compared to traditional techniques, which concentrated strain at individual screws adjacent to the osteotomy.</p> Conclusions <p>Performing SC and CB across an accessory construct-to-construct lateral (“rail”) rod resulted in significantly lower strain on individual pedicle screws adjacent to a simulated spinal osteotomy compared to traditional SC and CB. As such, the “rail” may lessen risk of screw pull-out and screw plow during maneuvers to correct spinal deformities. Future work focused on building upon this controlled study in cadaveric specimens will be important to validate these findings in more clinically relevant scenarios.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Construct-construct “rail technique” decreases screw strain during spinal deformity corrective maneuvers: a mechanical analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月28日

查看全文
  • Alekos A. Theologis,
  • Jason DePhillips,
  • Nathaniel A. Myers,
  • Jonathan M. Mahoney,
  • Brandon S. Bucklen

摘要

Purpose

To compare screw strains adjacent to a simulated spinal osteotomy between segmental compression (SC) and cantilever bending (CB) to SC and CB performed over a construct-to-construct lateral accessory rod (“rail”).

Methods

10 PCF foam blocks were instrumented with 6 polyaxial pedicle screws, each with a linear strain gage. SC and CB were performed over a traditional construct (midline rods) or over a construct-to-construct lateral accessory rod. Real-time screw strains were collected and peak strains were reported and compared between corrective techniques.

Results

Strains in screws closest to the osteotomy were significantly less during “rail” compression compared to traditional SC. Maximum screw strains were significantly lower during “rail” SC (p < .001) and CB (p = 0.003) compared to traditional SC and CB, respectively. Total screw strain was more evenly distributed over all 6 screws during “rail” compression and CB compared to traditional techniques, which concentrated strain at individual screws adjacent to the osteotomy.

Conclusions

Performing SC and CB across an accessory construct-to-construct lateral (“rail”) rod resulted in significantly lower strain on individual pedicle screws adjacent to a simulated spinal osteotomy compared to traditional SC and CB. As such, the “rail” may lessen risk of screw pull-out and screw plow during maneuvers to correct spinal deformities. Future work focused on building upon this controlled study in cadaveric specimens will be important to validate these findings in more clinically relevant scenarios.