Andersson Lesion-Complicating Ankylosing Spondylitis

Wang, Yao; Wang, Yan

doi:10.1007/978-981-13-6427-3_14

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After implantation of the internal fixation, stress distribution moved to the posterior column and PS system, effectively correcting the incorrect biomechanical distribution. In the lumbar spine, the spinal curve changed from lordosis to kyphosis, and stress was concentrated at the bone and PS system at the osteotomy level, which is consistent with the findings of Zhang et al [16]. The stress borne by the PS system was greater than that of the CBT in flexion, extension, and lateral bending, but the opposite was true for left and right rotations.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Therefore, unlike typical thoracolumbar fractures that can be treated with short-segment internal fixation,longsegment posterior spinal instrumentation is necessary for internal fixation in AS [13][14][15]. If corrective treatment for kyphotic deformities is required, satisfactory results can be achieved using posterior screw fixation combined with an appropriate osteotomy [16] (Fig. 1a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative biomechanical analysis of pedicle screws versus cortical bone trajectory fixation in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis

Zhang,

Kang,

Shi

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is an inflammatory rheumatic disease. Patients with spinal deformities are typically treated with long-segment pedicle screw (PS) internal fixation after bone resection. However, issues with the operation, such as fracture and screw loosening or pulling out, might arise. Methods This study explore the biomechanical responses to PS and cortical bone trajectory (CBT) fixation. Using finite element analysis (FEA) on reconstructed preoperative and postoperative spine models under six conditions, it predicted stiffness, range of motion (ROM), and von Mises stress, comparing PS and CBT fixation effects. Results Stiffness was greater in the PS than CBT, while the PS performed better than the CBT under bending stiffness, except for the PS under extension conditions. In flexion, extension, and lateral bending, the PS sustained higher stress than CBT, while in axial rotation, CBT experienced greater stress than PS, with stress concentration at the level of bone resection. Furthermore, during spinal dynamics, calcified ligaments bore substantial stress. Biomechanically, PS demonstrated superior strength during flexion, extension, and lateral bending conditions. Whereas, under conditions of left and right rotation, the CBT technique provided better biomechanical strength. Conclusion Compared to PS, the current CBT technique was sufficiently effective in maintaining spinal fusion stability after bone resection for AS.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%