These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
Pubmed for Handhelds
PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS
Search MEDLINE/PubMed
Title: Finite element analysis of 3 posterior fixation techniques in the lumbar spine. Author: Gong Z, Chen Z, Feng Z, Cao Y, Jiang C, Jiang X. Journal: Orthopedics; 2014 May; 37(5):e441-8. PubMed ID: 24810820. Abstract: This study compared the biomechanics of 3 fixation techniques: bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) fixation, unilateral pedicle screw (UPS) fixation, and UPS supplemented with translaminar facet screw (UPS+TLFS) fixation. The study was conducted in an L3-L5 finite element model. Three different finite element models were created by adopting different fixation techniques after removal of the left L3-L4 and L4-L5 facet joints. A 500-N compressive preload combined with 8-NM moment were applied in 3 finite element models with 3 fixation techniques during different movements. Angular displacement and stress distribution were recorded. As described in this article, the UPS model had the most variation in angular displacement, the BPS model was intermediate, and the UPS+TLFS model had the least mobility. Most of the stress accumulated on the body and tail of the pedicle screws and the connecting rods in the UPS and BPS models, but stress accumulated on the rods and the part of the facet joint pierced by the TLFS in the UPS+TLFS model. The middle part of the pedicle screw endured little stress compared with the upper and lower parts. The maximum stress on the fixation devices was highest in the UPS model. The maximum stress in the UPS+TLFS model was the lowest among the 3 models. Biomechanically, UPS+TLFS fixation is superior to either UPS fixation or BPS fixation in improving stability and reducing stress. Bilateral pedicle screw fixation is intermediate, and UPS fixation is inferior.[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]