About this item:

248 Views | 290 Downloads

Author Notes:

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University, Busan, Korea Jung-Hoon Kim, Email: jhkim@paik.ac.kr

WCH participated in the sequence alignment and drafted the manuscript. JMR participated in the sequence alignment.

SSK conceived of the study and helped to draft the manuscript. YE participated in its design and coordination.

JHK participated in the design and coordination of the study and the sequence alignment, drafted the manuscript, and performed the statistical analysis.

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Subjects:

Research Funding:

This work was supported by grant from Inje University, 2011.

Keywords:

  • Science & Technology
  • Life Sciences & Biomedicine
  • Orthopedics
  • Corpectomy
  • Total spondylectomy
  • Biomechanics
  • Thoracolumbar spine
  • Stiffness
  • Stability
  • EN-BLOC SPONDYLECTOMY
  • VERTEBRAL COLUMN RESECTION
  • IN-VITRO
  • RECONSTRUCTION
  • STABILITY
  • STIFFNESS
  • MOTION
  • BONE
  • INSTRUMENTATION
  • TUMORS

A biomechanical comparison of 360 degrees stabilizations for corpectomy and total spondylectomy: a cadaveric study in the thoracolumbar spine

Tools:

Journal Title:

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Volume:

Volume 10, Number 1

Publisher:

, Pages 99-99

Type of Work:

Article | Final Publisher PDF

Abstract:

Background: To date, there has been no adequate biomechanical model that would allow a quantitative comparison in terms of stability/stiffness between a corpectomy with the posterior column preserved and a total spondylectomy with the posterior column sacrificed. The objective of this study was to perform a biomechanical comparison of 360° stabilizations for corpectomy and total spondylectomy, using the human thoracolumbar spine. Methods: Five human cadaveric thoracolumbar spines (T8-L2) were tested according to the following loading protocol: axial compression, flexion, extension, lateral bending to the right and left, and axial rotation to the right and left. This loading protocol was applied three times. Each specimen was tested intact, after corpectomy, and after total spondylectomy. The relative stiffness of each motion segment was determined for each test. Results: There was no significant difference in stiffness after reconstruction of total spondylectomy versus corpectomy in our thoracolumbar model. Our construct consisted of an anterior cage and four-level pedicle screw instrumentation (two above and two below) and provided similar stiffness in both models. Despite the additional bone resection in a total spondylectomy versus corpectomy, the constructs did not differ biomechanically. Additionally, there was no significant difference in stiffness between the intact specimen and either reconstruction model. Conclusions: A classic corpectomy, which leaves the posterior column intact, is no better in terms of stability/stiffness than a total spondylectomy carried out using a shorter cage, followed by compression using posterior instrumentation.

Copyright information:

© 2015 Kim et al.

This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Export to EndNote