http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : Chongyu Jia (검색결과 1 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
Chongyu Jia,Renjie Zhang,Jiaqi Wang,Bo Zhang,Huaqing Zhang,Liang Kang,Luping Zhou,Cailiang Shen 대한척추신경외과학회 2023 Neurospine Vol.20 No.4
Objective: This study assessed biomechanical properties of pedicle screws enhanced or revised with 3 materials. We aimed to compare the efficacy of these materials in pedicle augmentation and revision. Methods: One hundred twenty human cadaveric vertebrae were utilized for in vitro testing. Vertebrae bone density was evaluated. Allograft bone particles (ABP), calcium phosphate cement (CPC), and demineralized bone matrix (DBM) were used to augment or revise pedicle screw. Post the implantation of pedicle screws, parameters such as insertional torque, pullout strength, cycles to failure and failure load were measured using specialized instruments. Results: ABP, CPC, and DBM significantly enhanced biomechanical properties of the screws. CPC augmentation showed superior properties compared to ABP or DBM. ABP-augmented screws had higher cycles to failure and failure loads than DBM-augmented screws, with no difference in pullout strength. CPC-revised screws exhibited similar strength to the original screws, while ABP-revised screws showed comparable cycles to failure and failure loads but lower pullout strength. DBM-revised screws did not match the original screws’ strength. Conclusion: ABP, CPC, and DBM effectively improve pedicle screw stability for pedicle augmentation. CPC demonstrated the highest efficacy, followed by ABP, while DBM was less effective. For pedicle revision, CPC is recommended as the primary choice, with ABP as an alternative. However, using DBM for pedicle revision is not recommended.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
