This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shirado, O.
Right arrow Articles by Warden, K. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Shirado, O.
Right arrow Articles by Warden, K. E.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol 73, Issue 4 518-526, Copyright © 1991 by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc


JOURNAL CONTENTS

Biomechanical evaluation of methods of posterior stabilization of the spine and posterior lumbar interbody arthrodesis for lumbosacral isthmic spondylolisthesis. A calf-spine model

O Shirado, TA Zdeblick, PC McAfee and KE Warden
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 21239.

In order to evaluate biomechanically the efficacy of four types of posterior instrumentation for the stabilization of isthmic spondylolisthesis of the lumbosacral spine, mechanical non-destructive cyclic testing in axial compression, flexion, extension, and rotation was performed on six fresh lumbosacral spines from calves. Each segment contained four motion segments, including the lumbosacral junction. Isthmic spondylolisthesis was created by sectioning the pars interarticularis of the sixth lumbar vertebra and all posterior ligaments between the fifth and sixth lumbar levels. Eight constructs were tested sequentially: (1) the intact spine, (2) the destabilized spine, (3) the spine fixed with Harrington double-distraction rods, (4) the spine treated with transpedicular Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation with a transverse approximating device, (5) the spine treated with Steffee transpedicular screws and plates, (6) the spine treated with posterior lumbar interbody arthrodesis, (7) the spine treated with Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation and posterior lumbar interbody arthrodesis, and (8) the spine treated with Steffee instrumentation and posterior lumbar interbody arthrodesis. One motion segment was involved in each construct, except for the spine that was fixed with Harrington instrumentation, which involved three segments. Strain across the supraspinous and anterior longitudinal ligaments was measured with two extensometers that were attached at the spondylolisthetic level and at the intact motion segments adjacent to the fixed level. Harrington instrumentation was the least rigid construct under any type of loading except axial compression (p less than 0.05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JBJSHome page
P. C. MCAFEE
Current Concepts Review - Interbody Fusion Cages in Reconstructive Operations on the Spine
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., June 1, 1999; 81(6): 859 - 80.
[Full Text]


Home page
JBJSHome page
O. SHIRADO, S. MATSUKAWA, and K. KANEDA
Herniation of the Disc between the First and Second Lumbar Vertebrae with a Monoradiculopathy of the Fifth Lumbar Nerve Root. A Case Report
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., September 1, 1996; 78(9): 1422 - 6.
[Full Text]