A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy

Abstract Objective To compare the spinal stability with different fixation methods after thoracic TES using finite element analysis Methods The spinal finite element model was established from a healthy volunteer, and the validity was verified. The models of T8 thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy (...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Yun Liang [verfasserIn] Yuanwu Cao [verfasserIn] Zhiguo Gong [verfasserIn] Chang Jiang [verfasserIn] Lixia Jin [verfasserIn] Zheng Li [verfasserIn] Zixian Chen [verfasserIn] Chun Jiang [verfasserIn] Xiaoxing Jiang [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2020

Schlagwörter:	Thoracic vertebra Thoracic cage TES Spinal stability Finite element analysis

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research - BMC, 2006, 15(2020), 1, Seite 8
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:15 ; year:2020 ; number:1 ; pages:8

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ029749239

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ029749239
003	DE-627
005	20230503063005.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230226s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ029749239
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJe2244ccb7fa548b78799637514256852
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a RD701-811
050		0	\|a RC925-935
100	0		\|a Yun Liang \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	2	\|a A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy
264		1	\|c 2020
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Abstract Objective To compare the spinal stability with different fixation methods after thoracic TES using finite element analysis Methods The spinal finite element model was established from a healthy volunteer, and the validity was verified. The models of T8 thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) with and without artificial vertebral body were established combination with different fixation methods: the first was long segment fixation with fixed segments T5–7, T9–11; the second was short segment fixation with fixed segments T6–7, T9–10; the third was modified short segment with a pair of vertebral body screws on T7 and T9 added on the basis of short segment fixation. The motions of each model in standing state were simulated in software. The range of motion (ROM) and internal fixation stress changes were analyzed. Results When anterior support was effective, the three fixation methods could effectively maintain the stability of the spine. However, when anterior support failed, the ROM of the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group in the flexion-extension directions was significantly higher than that of when the anterior support existed, while the modified short segment fixation group had no significant changes. Meanwhile, the stress of internal fixation in the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group were greatly increased. However, there were no significant changes in modified short segment fixation group. Conclusion After TES, the presence of the thoracic cage gives partial anterior stabilization. When the anterior support failed, the modified short segment fixation method can provide better stability.
650		4	\|a Thoracic vertebra
650		4	\|a Thoracic cage
650		4	\|a TES
650		4	\|a Spinal stability
650		4	\|a Finite element analysis
653		0	\|a Orthopedic surgery
653		0	\|a Diseases of the musculoskeletal system
700	0		\|a Yuanwu Cao \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Zhiguo Gong \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Chang Jiang \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Lixia Jin \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Zheng Li \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Zixian Chen \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Chun Jiang \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Xiaoxing Jiang \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research \|d BMC, 2006 \|g 15(2020), 1, Seite 8 \|w (DE-627)518346145 \|w (DE-600)2252548-8 \|x 1749799X \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:15 \|g year:2020 \|g number:1 \|g pages:8
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/e2244ccb7fa548b78799637514256852 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1749-799X \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 15 \|j 2020 \|e 1 \|h 8

Indexfelder

author_variant	y l yl y c yc z g zg c j cj l j lj z l zl z c zc c j cj x j xj
matchkey_str	article:1749799X:2020----::fnteeetnlssnoprntetbltodfeetotrofxtomtosot
hierarchy_sort_str	2020
callnumber-subject-code	RD
publishDate	2020
allfields	10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0 doi (DE-627)DOAJ029749239 (DE-599)DOAJe2244ccb7fa548b78799637514256852 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RD701-811 RC925-935 Yun Liang verfasserin aut A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Objective To compare the spinal stability with different fixation methods after thoracic TES using finite element analysis Methods The spinal finite element model was established from a healthy volunteer, and the validity was verified. The models of T8 thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) with and without artificial vertebral body were established combination with different fixation methods: the first was long segment fixation with fixed segments T5–7, T9–11; the second was short segment fixation with fixed segments T6–7, T9–10; the third was modified short segment with a pair of vertebral body screws on T7 and T9 added on the basis of short segment fixation. The motions of each model in standing state were simulated in software. The range of motion (ROM) and internal fixation stress changes were analyzed. Results When anterior support was effective, the three fixation methods could effectively maintain the stability of the spine. However, when anterior support failed, the ROM of the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group in the flexion-extension directions was significantly higher than that of when the anterior support existed, while the modified short segment fixation group had no significant changes. Meanwhile, the stress of internal fixation in the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group were greatly increased. However, there were no significant changes in modified short segment fixation group. Conclusion After TES, the presence of the thoracic cage gives partial anterior stabilization. When the anterior support failed, the modified short segment fixation method can provide better stability. Thoracic vertebra Thoracic cage TES Spinal stability Finite element analysis Orthopedic surgery Diseases of the musculoskeletal system Yuanwu Cao verfasserin aut Zhiguo Gong verfasserin aut Chang Jiang verfasserin aut Lixia Jin verfasserin aut Zheng Li verfasserin aut Zixian Chen verfasserin aut Chun Jiang verfasserin aut Xiaoxing Jiang verfasserin aut In Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research BMC, 2006 15(2020), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)518346145 (DE-600)2252548-8 1749799X nnns volume:15 year:2020 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/e2244ccb7fa548b78799637514256852 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1749-799X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2020 1 8
spelling	10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0 doi (DE-627)DOAJ029749239 (DE-599)DOAJe2244ccb7fa548b78799637514256852 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RD701-811 RC925-935 Yun Liang verfasserin aut A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Objective To compare the spinal stability with different fixation methods after thoracic TES using finite element analysis Methods The spinal finite element model was established from a healthy volunteer, and the validity was verified. The models of T8 thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) with and without artificial vertebral body were established combination with different fixation methods: the first was long segment fixation with fixed segments T5–7, T9–11; the second was short segment fixation with fixed segments T6–7, T9–10; the third was modified short segment with a pair of vertebral body screws on T7 and T9 added on the basis of short segment fixation. The motions of each model in standing state were simulated in software. The range of motion (ROM) and internal fixation stress changes were analyzed. Results When anterior support was effective, the three fixation methods could effectively maintain the stability of the spine. However, when anterior support failed, the ROM of the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group in the flexion-extension directions was significantly higher than that of when the anterior support existed, while the modified short segment fixation group had no significant changes. Meanwhile, the stress of internal fixation in the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group were greatly increased. However, there were no significant changes in modified short segment fixation group. Conclusion After TES, the presence of the thoracic cage gives partial anterior stabilization. When the anterior support failed, the modified short segment fixation method can provide better stability. Thoracic vertebra Thoracic cage TES Spinal stability Finite element analysis Orthopedic surgery Diseases of the musculoskeletal system Yuanwu Cao verfasserin aut Zhiguo Gong verfasserin aut Chang Jiang verfasserin aut Lixia Jin verfasserin aut Zheng Li verfasserin aut Zixian Chen verfasserin aut Chun Jiang verfasserin aut Xiaoxing Jiang verfasserin aut In Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research BMC, 2006 15(2020), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)518346145 (DE-600)2252548-8 1749799X nnns volume:15 year:2020 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/e2244ccb7fa548b78799637514256852 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1749-799X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2020 1 8
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0 doi (DE-627)DOAJ029749239 (DE-599)DOAJe2244ccb7fa548b78799637514256852 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RD701-811 RC925-935 Yun Liang verfasserin aut A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Objective To compare the spinal stability with different fixation methods after thoracic TES using finite element analysis Methods The spinal finite element model was established from a healthy volunteer, and the validity was verified. The models of T8 thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) with and without artificial vertebral body were established combination with different fixation methods: the first was long segment fixation with fixed segments T5–7, T9–11; the second was short segment fixation with fixed segments T6–7, T9–10; the third was modified short segment with a pair of vertebral body screws on T7 and T9 added on the basis of short segment fixation. The motions of each model in standing state were simulated in software. The range of motion (ROM) and internal fixation stress changes were analyzed. Results When anterior support was effective, the three fixation methods could effectively maintain the stability of the spine. However, when anterior support failed, the ROM of the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group in the flexion-extension directions was significantly higher than that of when the anterior support existed, while the modified short segment fixation group had no significant changes. Meanwhile, the stress of internal fixation in the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group were greatly increased. However, there were no significant changes in modified short segment fixation group. Conclusion After TES, the presence of the thoracic cage gives partial anterior stabilization. When the anterior support failed, the modified short segment fixation method can provide better stability. Thoracic vertebra Thoracic cage TES Spinal stability Finite element analysis Orthopedic surgery Diseases of the musculoskeletal system Yuanwu Cao verfasserin aut Zhiguo Gong verfasserin aut Chang Jiang verfasserin aut Lixia Jin verfasserin aut Zheng Li verfasserin aut Zixian Chen verfasserin aut Chun Jiang verfasserin aut Xiaoxing Jiang verfasserin aut In Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research BMC, 2006 15(2020), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)518346145 (DE-600)2252548-8 1749799X nnns volume:15 year:2020 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/e2244ccb7fa548b78799637514256852 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1749-799X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2020 1 8
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0 doi (DE-627)DOAJ029749239 (DE-599)DOAJe2244ccb7fa548b78799637514256852 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RD701-811 RC925-935 Yun Liang verfasserin aut A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Objective To compare the spinal stability with different fixation methods after thoracic TES using finite element analysis Methods The spinal finite element model was established from a healthy volunteer, and the validity was verified. The models of T8 thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) with and without artificial vertebral body were established combination with different fixation methods: the first was long segment fixation with fixed segments T5–7, T9–11; the second was short segment fixation with fixed segments T6–7, T9–10; the third was modified short segment with a pair of vertebral body screws on T7 and T9 added on the basis of short segment fixation. The motions of each model in standing state were simulated in software. The range of motion (ROM) and internal fixation stress changes were analyzed. Results When anterior support was effective, the three fixation methods could effectively maintain the stability of the spine. However, when anterior support failed, the ROM of the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group in the flexion-extension directions was significantly higher than that of when the anterior support existed, while the modified short segment fixation group had no significant changes. Meanwhile, the stress of internal fixation in the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group were greatly increased. However, there were no significant changes in modified short segment fixation group. Conclusion After TES, the presence of the thoracic cage gives partial anterior stabilization. When the anterior support failed, the modified short segment fixation method can provide better stability. Thoracic vertebra Thoracic cage TES Spinal stability Finite element analysis Orthopedic surgery Diseases of the musculoskeletal system Yuanwu Cao verfasserin aut Zhiguo Gong verfasserin aut Chang Jiang verfasserin aut Lixia Jin verfasserin aut Zheng Li verfasserin aut Zixian Chen verfasserin aut Chun Jiang verfasserin aut Xiaoxing Jiang verfasserin aut In Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research BMC, 2006 15(2020), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)518346145 (DE-600)2252548-8 1749799X nnns volume:15 year:2020 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/e2244ccb7fa548b78799637514256852 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1749-799X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2020 1 8
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0 doi (DE-627)DOAJ029749239 (DE-599)DOAJe2244ccb7fa548b78799637514256852 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RD701-811 RC925-935 Yun Liang verfasserin aut A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Objective To compare the spinal stability with different fixation methods after thoracic TES using finite element analysis Methods The spinal finite element model was established from a healthy volunteer, and the validity was verified. The models of T8 thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) with and without artificial vertebral body were established combination with different fixation methods: the first was long segment fixation with fixed segments T5–7, T9–11; the second was short segment fixation with fixed segments T6–7, T9–10; the third was modified short segment with a pair of vertebral body screws on T7 and T9 added on the basis of short segment fixation. The motions of each model in standing state were simulated in software. The range of motion (ROM) and internal fixation stress changes were analyzed. Results When anterior support was effective, the three fixation methods could effectively maintain the stability of the spine. However, when anterior support failed, the ROM of the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group in the flexion-extension directions was significantly higher than that of when the anterior support existed, while the modified short segment fixation group had no significant changes. Meanwhile, the stress of internal fixation in the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group were greatly increased. However, there were no significant changes in modified short segment fixation group. Conclusion After TES, the presence of the thoracic cage gives partial anterior stabilization. When the anterior support failed, the modified short segment fixation method can provide better stability. Thoracic vertebra Thoracic cage TES Spinal stability Finite element analysis Orthopedic surgery Diseases of the musculoskeletal system Yuanwu Cao verfasserin aut Zhiguo Gong verfasserin aut Chang Jiang verfasserin aut Lixia Jin verfasserin aut Zheng Li verfasserin aut Zixian Chen verfasserin aut Chun Jiang verfasserin aut Xiaoxing Jiang verfasserin aut In Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research BMC, 2006 15(2020), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)518346145 (DE-600)2252548-8 1749799X nnns volume:15 year:2020 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/e2244ccb7fa548b78799637514256852 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1749-799X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2020 1 8
language	English
source	In Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 15(2020), 1, Seite 8 volume:15 year:2020 number:1 pages:8
sourceStr	In Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 15(2020), 1, Seite 8 volume:15 year:2020 number:1 pages:8
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Thoracic vertebra Thoracic cage TES Spinal stability Finite element analysis Orthopedic surgery Diseases of the musculoskeletal system
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Yun Liang @@aut@@ Yuanwu Cao @@aut@@ Zhiguo Gong @@aut@@ Chang Jiang @@aut@@ Lixia Jin @@aut@@ Zheng Li @@aut@@ Zixian Chen @@aut@@ Chun Jiang @@aut@@ Xiaoxing Jiang @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2020-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	518346145
id	DOAJ029749239
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ029749239</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503063005.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ029749239</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJe2244ccb7fa548b78799637514256852</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RD701-811</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC925-935</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yun Liang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Objective To compare the spinal stability with different fixation methods after thoracic TES using finite element analysis Methods The spinal finite element model was established from a healthy volunteer, and the validity was verified. The models of T8 thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) with and without artificial vertebral body were established combination with different fixation methods: the first was long segment fixation with fixed segments T5–7, T9–11; the second was short segment fixation with fixed segments T6–7, T9–10; the third was modified short segment with a pair of vertebral body screws on T7 and T9 added on the basis of short segment fixation. The motions of each model in standing state were simulated in software. The range of motion (ROM) and internal fixation stress changes were analyzed. Results When anterior support was effective, the three fixation methods could effectively maintain the stability of the spine. However, when anterior support failed, the ROM of the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group in the flexion-extension directions was significantly higher than that of when the anterior support existed, while the modified short segment fixation group had no significant changes. Meanwhile, the stress of internal fixation in the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group were greatly increased. However, there were no significant changes in modified short segment fixation group. Conclusion After TES, the presence of the thoracic cage gives partial anterior stabilization. When the anterior support failed, the modified short segment fixation method can provide better stability.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Thoracic vertebra</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Thoracic cage</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">TES</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Spinal stability</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Finite element analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Orthopedic surgery</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Diseases of the musculoskeletal system</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yuanwu Cao</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhiguo Gong</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Chang Jiang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lixia Jin</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zheng Li</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zixian Chen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Chun Jiang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Xiaoxing Jiang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2006</subfield><subfield code="g">15(2020), 1, Seite 8</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)518346145</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2252548-8</subfield><subfield code="x">1749799X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:15</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/e2244ccb7fa548b78799637514256852</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1749-799X</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">15</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">8</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Yun Liang
spellingShingle	Yun Liang misc RD701-811 misc RC925-935 misc Thoracic vertebra misc Thoracic cage misc TES misc Spinal stability misc Finite element analysis misc Orthopedic surgery misc Diseases of the musculoskeletal system A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy
authorStr	Yun Liang
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)518346145
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	RD701-811
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1749799X
topic_title	RD701-811 RC925-935 A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy Thoracic vertebra Thoracic cage TES Spinal stability Finite element analysis
topic	misc RD701-811 misc RC925-935 misc Thoracic vertebra misc Thoracic cage misc TES misc Spinal stability misc Finite element analysis misc Orthopedic surgery misc Diseases of the musculoskeletal system
topic_unstemmed	misc RD701-811 misc RC925-935 misc Thoracic vertebra misc Thoracic cage misc TES misc Spinal stability misc Finite element analysis misc Orthopedic surgery misc Diseases of the musculoskeletal system
topic_browse	misc RD701-811 misc RC925-935 misc Thoracic vertebra misc Thoracic cage misc TES misc Spinal stability misc Finite element analysis misc Orthopedic surgery misc Diseases of the musculoskeletal system
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
hierarchy_parent_id	518346145
hierarchy_top_title	Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)518346145 (DE-600)2252548-8
title	A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ029749239 (DE-599)DOAJe2244ccb7fa548b78799637514256852
title_full	A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy
author_sort	Yun Liang
journal	Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
journalStr	Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2020
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	8
author_browse	Yun Liang Yuanwu Cao Zhiguo Gong Chang Jiang Lixia Jin Zheng Li Zixian Chen Chun Jiang Xiaoxing Jiang
container_volume	15
class	RD701-811 RC925-935
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Yun Liang
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy
callnumber	RD701-811
title_auth	A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy
abstract	Abstract Objective To compare the spinal stability with different fixation methods after thoracic TES using finite element analysis Methods The spinal finite element model was established from a healthy volunteer, and the validity was verified. The models of T8 thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) with and without artificial vertebral body were established combination with different fixation methods: the first was long segment fixation with fixed segments T5–7, T9–11; the second was short segment fixation with fixed segments T6–7, T9–10; the third was modified short segment with a pair of vertebral body screws on T7 and T9 added on the basis of short segment fixation. The motions of each model in standing state were simulated in software. The range of motion (ROM) and internal fixation stress changes were analyzed. Results When anterior support was effective, the three fixation methods could effectively maintain the stability of the spine. However, when anterior support failed, the ROM of the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group in the flexion-extension directions was significantly higher than that of when the anterior support existed, while the modified short segment fixation group had no significant changes. Meanwhile, the stress of internal fixation in the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group were greatly increased. However, there were no significant changes in modified short segment fixation group. Conclusion After TES, the presence of the thoracic cage gives partial anterior stabilization. When the anterior support failed, the modified short segment fixation method can provide better stability.
abstractGer	Abstract Objective To compare the spinal stability with different fixation methods after thoracic TES using finite element analysis Methods The spinal finite element model was established from a healthy volunteer, and the validity was verified. The models of T8 thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) with and without artificial vertebral body were established combination with different fixation methods: the first was long segment fixation with fixed segments T5–7, T9–11; the second was short segment fixation with fixed segments T6–7, T9–10; the third was modified short segment with a pair of vertebral body screws on T7 and T9 added on the basis of short segment fixation. The motions of each model in standing state were simulated in software. The range of motion (ROM) and internal fixation stress changes were analyzed. Results When anterior support was effective, the three fixation methods could effectively maintain the stability of the spine. However, when anterior support failed, the ROM of the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group in the flexion-extension directions was significantly higher than that of when the anterior support existed, while the modified short segment fixation group had no significant changes. Meanwhile, the stress of internal fixation in the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group were greatly increased. However, there were no significant changes in modified short segment fixation group. Conclusion After TES, the presence of the thoracic cage gives partial anterior stabilization. When the anterior support failed, the modified short segment fixation method can provide better stability.
abstract_unstemmed	Abstract Objective To compare the spinal stability with different fixation methods after thoracic TES using finite element analysis Methods The spinal finite element model was established from a healthy volunteer, and the validity was verified. The models of T8 thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) with and without artificial vertebral body were established combination with different fixation methods: the first was long segment fixation with fixed segments T5–7, T9–11; the second was short segment fixation with fixed segments T6–7, T9–10; the third was modified short segment with a pair of vertebral body screws on T7 and T9 added on the basis of short segment fixation. The motions of each model in standing state were simulated in software. The range of motion (ROM) and internal fixation stress changes were analyzed. Results When anterior support was effective, the three fixation methods could effectively maintain the stability of the spine. However, when anterior support failed, the ROM of the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group in the flexion-extension directions was significantly higher than that of when the anterior support existed, while the modified short segment fixation group had no significant changes. Meanwhile, the stress of internal fixation in the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group were greatly increased. However, there were no significant changes in modified short segment fixation group. Conclusion After TES, the presence of the thoracic cage gives partial anterior stabilization. When the anterior support failed, the modified short segment fixation method can provide better stability.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy
url	https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0 https://doaj.org/article/e2244ccb7fa548b78799637514256852 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0 https://doaj.org/toc/1749-799X
remote_bool	true
author2	Yuanwu Cao Zhiguo Gong Chang Jiang Lixia Jin Zheng Li Zixian Chen Chun Jiang Xiaoxing Jiang
author2Str	Yuanwu Cao Zhiguo Gong Chang Jiang Lixia Jin Zheng Li Zixian Chen Chun Jiang Xiaoxing Jiang
ppnlink	518346145
callnumber-subject	RD - Surgery
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0
callnumber-a	RD701-811
up_date	2024-07-04T00:14:27.847Z
_version_	1803605317096833024
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ029749239</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503063005.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ029749239</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJe2244ccb7fa548b78799637514256852</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RD701-811</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC925-935</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yun Liang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Objective To compare the spinal stability with different fixation methods after thoracic TES using finite element analysis Methods The spinal finite element model was established from a healthy volunteer, and the validity was verified. The models of T8 thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) with and without artificial vertebral body were established combination with different fixation methods: the first was long segment fixation with fixed segments T5–7, T9–11; the second was short segment fixation with fixed segments T6–7, T9–10; the third was modified short segment with a pair of vertebral body screws on T7 and T9 added on the basis of short segment fixation. The motions of each model in standing state were simulated in software. The range of motion (ROM) and internal fixation stress changes were analyzed. Results When anterior support was effective, the three fixation methods could effectively maintain the stability of the spine. However, when anterior support failed, the ROM of the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group in the flexion-extension directions was significantly higher than that of when the anterior support existed, while the modified short segment fixation group had no significant changes. Meanwhile, the stress of internal fixation in the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group were greatly increased. However, there were no significant changes in modified short segment fixation group. Conclusion After TES, the presence of the thoracic cage gives partial anterior stabilization. When the anterior support failed, the modified short segment fixation method can provide better stability.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Thoracic vertebra</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Thoracic cage</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">TES</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Spinal stability</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Finite element analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Orthopedic surgery</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Diseases of the musculoskeletal system</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yuanwu Cao</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhiguo Gong</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Chang Jiang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lixia Jin</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zheng Li</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zixian Chen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Chun Jiang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Xiaoxing Jiang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2006</subfield><subfield code="g">15(2020), 1, Seite 8</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)518346145</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2252548-8</subfield><subfield code="x">1749799X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:15</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/e2244ccb7fa548b78799637514256852</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1749-799X</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">15</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">8</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.401374

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?