Publication:
Experimental evaluation of the developmental mechanism underlying fractures at the adjacent segment

dc.contributor.coauthorOzkaya, Mustafa
dc.contributor.coauthorDemir, Teyfik
dc.contributor.coauthorYaman, Mesut Emre
dc.contributor.coauthorOzalp, Hakan
dc.contributor.coauthorDalbayrak, Sedat
dc.contributor.departmentKUH (Koç University Hospital)
dc.contributor.kuauthorYaman, Onur
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteKUH (KOÇ UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL)
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-09T23:37:25Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.description.abstractBackground: Compression fractures at adjacent mobile segments have been reported as adjacent segment disease under trauma in several studies. In this study, the occurrence of fractures at the adjacent segment was evaluated experimentally under trauma. Methods: Static testing of different fixation systems was performed to show their biomechanical performances. The ovine vertebrae fixed with rigid, dynamic, and semirigid systems were used as test samples. The stiffness values of the systems were obtained by testing the vertebrectomy models under compression bending, lateral bending, and torsion tests. In addition, their effects on the adjacent segments were experimentally evaluated within a drop mechanism. A free-fall drop mechanism was designed and manufactured. Next, 3.5-kg, 5-kg, and 7-kg weights were released from 1 m above the test samples to generate compression fractures. The occurrence of compression fractures was observed with the use of radiograph of test samples, which were obtained before and after the drop test. Results: Dynamic and semirigid systems have advantages compared with rigid systems as the result of their lower stiffness values. Radiographs showed that epiphysis fractures occurred at fixed and adjacent mobile segments, which were fixed with semirigid fixation. In addition, dynamic fixation well preserved the fixed and adjacent mobile segments under trauma. Conclusions: The dynamic system with a polyetheretherketone rod can better preserve both adjacent and fixed segments. However, because of the cantilever beam effect, the semirigid system exhibits a great disadvantage.
dc.description.indexedbyWOS
dc.description.indexedbyScopus
dc.description.indexedbyPubMed
dc.description.openaccessNO
dc.description.publisherscopeInternational
dc.description.sponsoredbyTubitakEuN/A
dc.description.volume86
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.wneu.2015.09.062
dc.identifier.eissn1878-8769
dc.identifier.issn1878-8750
dc.identifier.quartileQ2
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84959487740
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2015.09.062
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/12824
dc.identifier.wos369625300052
dc.keywordsAdjacent segment disease
dc.keywordsCompression fracture
dc.keywordsDrop
dc.keywordsDynamic fixation
dc.keywordsRigid fixation
dc.keywordsSemirigid fixation
dc.keywordsLumbar interbody fusion
dc.keywordsSpinal-fusion
dc.keywordsIn-vitro
dc.keywordsDynamic stabilization
dc.keywordsLumbosacral fusion
dc.keywordsInstrumentation
dc.keywordsFixation
dc.keywordsDisease
dc.keywordsAnterior
dc.keywordsSpondylolisthesis
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.ispartofWorld Neurosurgery
dc.subjectClinical neuropsychology
dc.subjectSurgery
dc.titleExperimental evaluation of the developmental mechanism underlying fractures at the adjacent segment
dc.typeJournal Article
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.contributor.kuauthorYaman, Onur
local.publication.orgunit1KUH (KOÇ UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL)
local.publication.orgunit2KUH (Koç University Hospital)
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublicationf91d21f0-6b13-46ce-939a-db68e4c8d2ab
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryf91d21f0-6b13-46ce-939a-db68e4c8d2ab
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication055775c9-9efe-43ec-814f-f6d771fa6dee
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery055775c9-9efe-43ec-814f-f6d771fa6dee

Files