Repair of the Defect in Spondylolysis. Durable Fixation with Pedicle Screws and Laminar Hooks*

1997 ◽  
Vol 79 (6) ◽  
pp. 818-825 ◽  
Author(s):  
MASAAKI KAKIUCHI
Keyword(s):  
2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 444-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Cordista ◽  
Bryan Conrad ◽  
MaryBeth Horodyski ◽  
Sheri Walters ◽  
Glenn Rechtine

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 20-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. A Kuleshov ◽  
I. N Lisyansky ◽  
M. S Vetrile ◽  
N. S Gavryushenko ◽  
L. V Fomin

Using human cadaver spines we compared the stiffness of pedicle screws and laminar hooks under cyclic and static pull-out loads. Transpedicular and hook fixation (sub- and supralaminar) of cadaveric thoracic spine segments was performed. Axial pull-out strength was measured using w+b (walter + bai ag) servoelectric testing machine (LFV-10-T50, Switzerland). Static pull-out tests were performed on 7 spine blocks with transpedicular and 7 blocks with hook fixation. The same blocks were tested under cyclic loads. At cyclic pull-out loading 800 N strength with 5 Hz frequency was applied. It was shown that at increasing static load hook implants could bear 1417 N at average. At higher loads the vertebral arch was destroyed. Transpedicular implants could bear 2286 N at average and at higher loads the screw migrated from the arch root. Cyclic tests showed that hooks could bear 2935 cycles at average and at prolonged loading the arch was destroyed. The hooks could bear the full; program of cyclic loads without destruction (18 000 cycles).


2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 155S ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Jones ◽  
Mark Kayanja ◽  
Ryan Milks ◽  
Isador Lieberman

Spine ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 376-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott A. Yerby ◽  
John R. Ehteshami ◽  
Robert F. McLain

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (8) ◽  
pp. 1378-1382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bin Ni ◽  
Zhuangchen Zhu ◽  
Fengjin Zhou ◽  
Qunfeng Guo ◽  
Jian Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 220-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Túlio Reis ◽  
Eric W. Nottmeier ◽  
Phillip M. Reyes ◽  
Seungwon Baek ◽  
Neil R. Crawford

The Food and Drug Administration has not cleared the following medical devices for the use described in this study. The following medical devices are being discussed for an off-label use: cervical lateral mass screws. Object As an alternative for cases in which the anatomy and spatial relationship between C-2 and a vertebral artery precludes insertion of C-2 pedicle/pars or C1–2 transarticular screws, a technique that includes opposing laminar hooks (claw) at C-2 combined with C-1 lateral mass screws may be used. The biomechanical stability of this alternate technique was compared with that of a standard screw-rod technique in vitro. Methods Flexibility tests were performed in 7 specimens (occiput to C-3) in the following 6 different conditions: 1) intact; 2) after creating instability and attaching a posterior cable/graft at C1–2; 3) after removing the graft and attaching a construct comprising C-1 lateral mass screws and C-2 laminar claws; 4) after reattaching the posterior cable-graft at C1–2 (posterior hardware still in place); 5) after removing the posterior cable-graft and laminar hooks and placing C-2 pedicle screws interconnected to C-1 lateral mass screws via rod; and 6) after reattaching the posterior cable-graft at C1–2 (screw-rod construct still in place). Results All types of stabilization significantly reduced the range of motion, lax zone, and stiff zone compared with the intact condition. There was no significant biomechanical difference in terms of range of motion or lax zone between the screw-rod construct and the screw-claw-rod construct in any direction of loading. Conclusions The screw-claw-rod technique restricts motion much like the standard Harms technique, making it an acceptable alternative technique when aberrant arterial anatomy precludes the placement of C-2 pars/pedicle screws or C1–2 transarticular screws.


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 150-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhao Han ◽  
Jun Yang ◽  
Qunxiang Chen ◽  
Xuhua Lu ◽  
Fei Chen ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND A C1 laminar hook can theoretically avoid vertebral artery injury and is less technically demanding. However, only few studies with small samples analyzed the short-term outcomes of C2 pedicle screws combined with C1 laminar hooks (C2PS-C1LH) technique in the treatment of atlantoaxial dislocation. Furthermore, it is not confirmed whether similar clinical outcomes can be achieved with C1-C2 pedicle screw and rod construct (PSRC). OBJECTIVE To evaluate the outcomes of C2PS-C1LH and C1-C2 PSRC fixation techniques for treating atlantoaxial dislocation. METHODS Data of 52 patients with atlantoaxial dislocation treated by C1-C2 PSRC or C2PS-C1LH fixation were retrospectively reviewed. Outcomes evaluated by visual analog scale score for neck pain (VASSNP), Neck Disability Index (NDI), atlantodental interval (ADI), and the perioperative parameters including blood loss and operation time were analyzed and compared between 2 techniques. Patient satisfaction at final follow-up was also investigated. RESULTS There were no complications related to the surgical approach and instrumentation in either group. The mean bone fusion time was 5.06 ± 1.65 mo for the C2PS-C1LH group and 3.93 ± 0.99 mo for the C1-C2 PSRC group (P > .05). Hundred percent of fusion rates were achieved in both groups at month 12 after operation. The ADI, VAS scores, the NDI scores, and the JOA scores were greatly improved in both the groups (P < .05), but there were no significant differences between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION C2PS-C1LH fixation technique was comparable to C1-C2 PSRC in the treatment of reducible atlantoaxial dislocation. C2PS-C1LH fixation was an ideal alternative strategy to C1-C2 PSRC fixation.


2001 ◽  
Vol 72 (6) ◽  
pp. 615-620 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cornelius Wimmer ◽  
Herbert Gluch ◽  
Michael Nogler ◽  
Nadja Walochnik

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document