| Title |
In vitro investigation of two connector types for continuous rod construct to extend lumbar spinal instrumentation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-018-5664-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bastian Welke, Michael Schwarze, Christof Hurschler, Dennis Nebel, Nadine Bergmann, Dorothea Daentzer |
| Abstract |
Instrumentation of the lumbar spine is a common procedure for treating pathologic conditions. Studies have revealed the risks of pathologies in the adjacent segments, with the incidence rate being up to 36.1%. Revision procedures are often required, including extension of the instrumentation by the use of connectors to adjacent levels. The aim of this study was to determine the stiffness of side-to-side and end-to-end connectors for comparison with the use of continuous rods. Ten human lumbar spine specimens (L1-S1) were tested about the three axes under pure moment loading of ± 7.5 Nm. Nine conditions were used to investigate the functions of the extensions for different instrumentation lengths (L3-S1 and L2-S1) and different connector levels (L3/4 and L2/3). The intersegmental range of motion (iROM) and intersegmental neutral zone as well as total range of motion (tROM) and total neutral zone (tNZ) were analyzed. The application of the spinal system significantly decreased the tROMs (- 44 to - 83%) and iROMs in levels L2/3 (- 56 to - 94%) and L3/4 (- 68 to - 99%) in all the tested directions, and the tNZ under flexion/extension (- 63 to - 71%) and axial rotation (- 34 to - 72%). These decreases were independent of the employed configuration (p < 0.05). The only significant changes in the iROM were observed under lateral bending between the continuous rod and the side-to-side connector at level L3/4 (p = 0.006). From a biomechanical viewpoint, the tested connectors are comparable to continuous rods in terms of ROM and NZ. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 50% |
| France | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 17% |
| Researcher | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 8% |
| Engineering | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,978,863
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#2,293
of 4,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,122
of 328,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#24
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,686 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,349 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.