[Loading on internal spinal fixation devices].

A Rohlmann; G Bergmann; F Graichen; U Weber

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10394604

[Loading on internal spinal fixation devices].

A Rohlmann·G Bergmann·F Graichen·U Weber

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The loads acting on internal spinal fixation devices were measured for different activities in ten patients using telemeterized bisegmental implants. The highest loads were found for walking and lateral bending of the upper body while standing. When bending forwards the upper body, the fixator loads were only slightly altered. The forces and moments were not higher during sitting than during standing. Therefore, sitting should be allowed for patients with instrumented spines as soon as getting up is allowed. The forces and moments in the fixators were often altered due to anterior interbody fusion. Especially in patients with degenerative instability, the implant loads were higher after anterior interbody fusion than before. Braces were not able to markedly reduce the fixator loads. Therefore, it does not seem helpful to brace patients after mono- or bisegmental stabilization of the thoracic or lumbar spine.

Explore related subjects

Braces Female Fracture Fixation, Internal Humans Male Postoperative Care Spinal Fractures English Abstract Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

A Rohlmann, G Bergmann, F Graichen, U Weber. 1999. [Loading on internal spinal fixation devices].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10394604/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2001

Lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar supports are used in the treatment of low back pain, but also to prevent the onset (primary prevention) or recurrences of a low back pain episode (secondary prevention). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of lumbar sup-ports for prevention and treatment of nonspecific low back pain. METHODS: The Medline, Cinahl, and Current Contents databases; the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to September 1999; and the Embase database up to September 1998 were all searched. References of identified trials and systematic reviews were reviewed and the Science Citation Index used to identify additional trials. Methodologic quality assessment and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. A quantitative analysis was performed in which the strength of evidence was classified as strong, moderate, limited or conflicting, and no evidence. RESULTS: Five randomized and two nonrandomized preventive trials and six randomized therapeutic trials were included in the review. Only 4 of the 13 studies were of high quality. There was moderate evidence that lumbar supports are not effective for primary prevention. No evidence was found on the effectiveness of lumbar supports for secondary prevention. The systematic review of therapeutic trials showed that there is limited evidence that lumbar supports are more effective than no treatment, whereas it is still unclear whether lumbar supports are more effective than other interventions for treatment of low back pain. CONCLUSIONS: There continues to be a need for high quality randomized trials on the effectiveness of lumbar supports. One of the most essential issues to tackle in these future trials seems to be the realization of adequate compliance.

Braces↗

PubMed2001

Knee bracing for medial compartment osteoarthritis: effects on proprioception and postural control.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of a functional knee brace specifically designed for patients with varus gonarthrosis on measures of proprioception and postural control. SUBJECTS: Fourteen men and six women (aged 59+/-9 yr) with measurable varus alignment and osteoarthritis of the knee medial compartment. METHODS: Proprioception was assessed in the sitting position using an isokinetic dynamometer and was quantified as the ability to replicate target knee-joint angles. Postural control was assessed with a force platform using tests of single-limb standing balance performed, while the patient was standing on a stable surface and standing on foam, and was quantified as the total length of the path of the centre of pressure. All tests were performed with and without the patient's own custom-fit valgus brace. RESULTS: Proprioception was significantly improved following application of the brace [mean difference=0.7 degrees, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.2 to 1.1 degrees ). Postural control was not significantly affected by the use of the brace during the stable surface test (mean difference=2.6 cm, 95% CI=-4.3 to 9.5 cm) or the foam surface test (mean difference=0.9 cm, 95% CI=-7.5 to 9.4 cm). CONCLUSION: Although enhanced proprioception may be partially responsible for reported improvements with the use of a brace, the present findings call into question the functional importance of the small changes observed.

Braces↗

PubMed2001

Lung function measurements in young children with spinal muscle atrophy; a cross sectional survey on the effect of position and bracing.

BACKGROUND: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) affects respiratory muscles, which in addition to progressive scoliosis leads to respiratory impairment. Children with developing scoliosis are usually treated with spinal bracing to delay the progress. AIMS: To assess the impact of body position and application of spinal bracing on lung function during tidal breathing in children with SMA. METHODS: Lung function was determined by tidal flow volume loops and passive respiratory mechanics (single breath occlusion technique) in all eight children in southern Norway with SMA type I and II, in both the sitting and supine position. Additional measurements were performed with and without bracing in five children. Muscle strength was assessed by the Brooks scale. RESULTS: Tidal expiratory volume (V(E)) and compliance of the respiratory system (CRS) tended to be higher in the sitting compared to the supine position, but this was not statistically significant. However, applying bracing in the sitting position significantly reduced V(E). The highest values of CRS and V(E) were found in the sitting position without bracing. CONCLUSION: Impairment of tidal respiration must be considered when applying spinal bracing in very young children developing scoliosis with SMA.

Braces↗