腰椎椎弓根钉充分加压固定术—促进椎间植骨融合治疗腰椎骨折脱位及腰椎滑脱症的生物力学和临床研究
|
摘要
目的
腰椎滑脱症的治疗原则是使受累神经组织充分减压,恢复损伤节段的对线和稳定,进行早期康复。脊柱融合术是指以病变椎间隙为中心,从病损区上位的正常脊椎到下位的正常脊椎做植骨术,使脊柱两个节段发生骨性融合,形成一个力学整体,从而达到治疗脊柱疾患、消除疼痛、控制畸形发展、重建脊柱稳定性及保护脊髓神经的目的。
目前治疗腰椎滑脱有很多内固定手术方法,临床常用的技术包括后路椎间植骨内固定融合术(PLIF),后侧路椎间植骨内固定融合术及加用椎小关节融合术等,易于操作,风险也很小,但其融合率与预期还有很大差距。不应用内固定器械的后侧路腰椎融合术假关节率高达50%,加用内固定器械(椎弓根钉)增加了关节的融合成功率,但融合失败率仍有20%,目前临床最广为接受的术式是Cloward提出的腰椎后路椎间融合术(PLIF),但仍有融合失败,残留神经症状,以及髂骨供区的并发症等许多弊端。
用于脊柱内固定器械和手术方法效果评价最常用的方法是生物力学评价,包括实验力学和理论生物力学方法。实验生物力学一般采用尸体骨或与人体形状,力学性能相似的新鲜小牛和猪的脊柱标本。理论生物力学实验即计算机数字模拟技术,最常用的是有限元分析方法。
本实验的目的就是对一种新的腰椎滑脱治疗方法-椎间加压植骨融合术的生物力学进行评价,通过与目前最常用的PLIF法进行比较,从局部生物力学稳定性和应力分布情况验证新方法的生物力学优点,为这种新的术式的临床应用提供理论支持。
IntroductionLumbar spondylolisthesis is not an infrequent finding and has been reported in approximately 6% of the adult population. Spondylolisthesis causes segmental instability with symptomatic nerve root compression that is unresponsive to conservative treatment, and it may necessitate decompression with stabilization. The surgical management of spondylolisthesis is a challenge because of the difficulties in achieving a reliable arthrodesis in the face of high mechanical forces in lumban spine. The lumbar spine can provide a hostile environment for successful bone fusion as it bears substantial axial, torsional, and translational loads. Translational loads are particularly relevant at the lumbosacral junction where the local anatomy acts to convert axial loads into translational and angular resultant force vectors. Furthermore, it is difficult to resect a disc completely or to perform a complete corpectomy. On one hand, aggressive endplate debridement may result in the loss of integrity of this vital component of the axial load - bearing complex. On the other hand, incomplete debridement may result in pseudar-throsis due to inadequate preparation of the graft bed.Several surgical techniques have been conducted using various internal fixation and fusion devices. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is one of the established methods of treatment for spondylolisthesis. The advantages of PLIF over other types of lumbar fusion are that it dynamically decompresses the neural structures by holding the vertebral bodies apart, fusing them into a single motion
segment, and it may have a higher rate of success in single - level fusion. Pedicle screw fixation has been used to increase the fusion rate, to correct deformities, and to provide early stabilization. However, construct failure often occurs following PLIF because of the large lumbosacral loads and cantilever pullout forces at this region.A new method of lumbosacral PLIF that has been used successfully in spon-dylolisthesis at our institution involves the posterior decompression, interverte-bral foraminal enlargement, reduction and posterior interbody compression fusion achieved through compression on the segmental pedicle screw system to make the posterior walls of adjacent vertebra contact. As lumbosacral fixation techniques and theories continue to develop, further understanding in terms of their comparative biomechanical properties is necessary. In the present study, we try to provide some insight into the biomechanical, theoretical, as well as practical findings about interbody compression fusion for the treatment of spondylolisthesis. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate and analyze the biomechanical features of interbody compression fusion using a calf spine model of simulated spondylolisthesis and a three - dimensional nonlinear finite element method respectively.MethodsBiomechanical evaluation in a Calf Spine ModelSpecimen PreparationA total of 48 fresh calf lumbar spines (Lj.j motion segments) were used in this investigation. All specimens were examined by radiograph to exclude occult fracture or abnormality. In preparation for biomechanical testing, the calf spinal specimens were thawed at room temperature and stripped of all residual musculature, with care taken to preserve all ligamentous attachments and maintain segmental integrity. The proximal and distal ends of the specimen were fixed to the materials testing machine ( BIONDC 858, Material Test System, Eden, Prairie, MN, USA) using the self-made clamp and bone cement (PMMA).Biomechanical testing
Nondestructive tests were performed under axial compression ( 500 N) , flexion ( 10.0 Nm) , extension ( 10. ONm) , right lateral bending (10. 0 Nm) , and left lateral bending (10. ONm). Load displacement curves were recorded. Each test was performed over 3 full cycles and data from the third cycle were obtained for further analysis. A cyclic compression force was applied as conditioning (500 10 N at 1 Hz for 100 cycles) to remove excess fluid from the disc and return the disc to its predeath height.Each intact lumbar spine was tested first (intact). Consequently, an L4 laminectomy, a bilateral L4 _5 facetectomy, and a radical discectomy ( with resection of both anterior and posterior longitudinal ligaments) were performed according to Panjabi method. The spondylolisthesis were stabilized by the conventional PLJF and interbody compression fusion (ICF) achieved through compression on the segmental pedicle screw system to make the posterior walls of adjacent vertebra contact respectively. All through the destabilizing and restabilizing procedures, great care was taken to avoid damaging the bilateral facet joints, and the capsules overlying the facet were left intact. The specimens were kept moist with saline spraying throughout the biomechanical testing to avoid the detrimental effects of ligament desiccation. These spondylolisthesis specimens were retested (PLIFand ICF).AnalysisStiffness values were calculated from the load displacement curves. A specific value (ratio of PLIF or ICF to intact) was calculated to evaluate the stiffness. Independent - samples T test analysis was performed to determine whether significant differences existed in stiffness and displacement between different surgical interventions. All significance comparisons were at P <0. 05. Statistical analyses were performed with statistical product and service solutions (SPSS) software.Finite element AnalysisNormal ModelFor the preparation of three - dimensional finite element model, L4 -L5 motion segment data were obtained from computed tomography (CT, Marconi MX8000, Philips) (at 2 mm wide increments) of the lumbar spine of a 19 -
year - old man who has no abnormal findings on roentgenography. In the global coordinate system, the cross - sectional plane on CT was considered to be the XY plane, and the Z axis was set vertical to the cross - sectional plane of the center of the intervertebral disc. To simplify preparation of the models, the differences in shape of the L4 L5 vertebral bodies were ignored. L4 L5 motion segments comprising a total of 146411 elements and 227847 nodes were developed.A three - dimensional isotropic solid element was used for modeling the cortical bone, cancellous bone, endplate, annulus fibers and nucleus pulposus. The material properties of each element were determined from the literature. Ligaments were modeled using the cable element, and each element was arranged in the anatomic direction. The cross - sectional area of each ligament and its nonlinear stress - strain behavior were obtained from the literature. The facet joint was treated as a nonlinear frictionless three - dimensional contact problem.Spondylolisthesis and fusion ModelsSpondylolisthesis model was prepared by resecting supraspinous, interspi-nous, posterior longitudinal flavum ligament and bilateral facet joints of L4 - 5 , as well as posterior half nucleus pulposus and vertebral arc on the normal model described above.The interbody fusion model was prepared by replacing the material properties of the outermost layer of the annulus of the standard model with those of cortical bone and by replacing the material properties inside the annulus and nucleus with those of cancellous bone.The conventional PLIF model (PLIF model) was prepared by adding pedicle screw system to the interbody fusion model described above, which consist of a total of 435968 elements and 84017 nodes. The interbody compression fusion model (ICF model) was prepared by making the posterior walls of adjacent vertebra contact and adding pedicle screw system to the interbody fusion model, the ICF model comprised a total of 633059 elements and 116946 nodes.Loading ConditionsWith the PLIF model and ICF model, the stress of 1200 N was applied to the screws. The inferior surface of the L5 vertebral body and its inferior facet
were fixed in all directions. 5 loads were used in this study. In compression loading, an axial compressive force of up to 500N was loaded on the center of the surface of the L4 vertebral body. In flexion - extension, lateral bending and torsion loading, the moment was applied on the surface of the L4 vertebral body up to 10 Nm. Each model was loaded while the response to compressive load, the response to flexion - extension, lateral bending and torsion loads, and the distribution of vonMises stress were analyzed and compared.Clinical evaluation17 patients, who suffered from isthmic and degenerative spondylolisthesis with more than 2mm displacement on the plain radiograph, were treated consecutively with posterior decompression, intervertebral foraminal enlargement, reduction and posterior interbody compression fusion achieved through compression on the segmental pedicle screw system to make the posterior walls of adjacent vertebra contact. The mean age at the time of surgery was 63.6 years ( range, 33 -76 years). Patients were followed up and evaluated for complications, neurological function and fusions.ResultsBiomechanical evaluation in a Calf Spine ModelThe interbody compression fusion showed higher rigidity than conventional PLIF. The rates of increase in stiffness in the compression, flexion and extension test were about 43% , 48% and 51% respectively (p < 0.05). The specific value of stiffness for ICF was 1.4 — 1.5 times greater than that of conventional PLIF.Finite element AnalysisResponse to loadsAt axial compression force, the ICF model showed the highest rigidity, followed by the PLIF and normal model. The rate of increase of the stiffness in the ICF model was about 31.6% , compared with the PLIF model. In all flexion -extension, lateral bending and torsion loads, the ICF model showed the highest rigidity. The rotation angles of flexion and extension decreased 37.6% and 39.
9%. Above findings were similar to those in calf spine specimens.VonMises Stress DistributionRegarding the VonMises stress distributions under compression loading, in the ICF models, the stress in the vertebral body and in interbody was up to 81. 1MPa and 46. 332 MPa respectively, while in the PLIF models, stress was 5. 609 MPa and 9.049 MPa.In both internal fixation models with flexion - extension, lateral bending and torsion loading, stress concentration was located the junction of screws and cortical bone, and the stress in response to torsion was the largest, up to 112. 752 MPa.Clinical evaluationAll patients underwent successful follow - up for an average of 24. 5 months, ranging from 12 to 32 months. No intraoperative and postoperative complications were observed. The neurological function of the patients was restored partially or complete. No patient had neurologic deterioration after surgery. The lumbar spine was stable during physical examination and all patients were satisfied with the surgery. Radiographs showed implants to be satisfactorily positioned in all cases. There were no cases of hardware failure, loss of reduction, or painful hardware requiring removal. No significant movement was detected on the dynamic films and all tomograms confirmed the presence of a bridging fusion mass. Radiographic evaluation showed close conjunction of adjacent posterior edges of vertebral body in 12 of 17 cases, and the distance between the posterior edge less than 3mm in the other 5 patients.ConclusionsThis biomechanical study showed that the new surgical procedure, interbody compression fusion by pedicle screw system, for spondylolisthesis was a stable construct compared with conventional PLIF techniques.It showed that the finite element technique can be used to predict clinically relevant biomechanical parameters in the lumbar spine. Finite element analysis confirmed the observation that interbody compression fusion was more rigid than
腰椎滑脱症的治疗原则是使受累神经组织充分减压,恢复损伤节段的对线和稳定,进行早期康复。脊柱融合术是指以病变椎间隙为中心,从病损区上位的正常脊椎到下位的正常脊椎做植骨术,使脊柱两个节段发生骨性融合,形成一个力学整体,从而达到治疗脊柱疾患、消除疼痛、控制畸形发展、重建脊柱稳定性及保护脊髓神经的目的。
目前治疗腰椎滑脱有很多内固定手术方法,临床常用的技术包括后路椎间植骨内固定融合术(PLIF),后侧路椎间植骨内固定融合术及加用椎小关节融合术等,易于操作,风险也很小,但其融合率与预期还有很大差距。不应用内固定器械的后侧路腰椎融合术假关节率高达50%,加用内固定器械(椎弓根钉)增加了关节的融合成功率,但融合失败率仍有20%,目前临床最广为接受的术式是Cloward提出的腰椎后路椎间融合术(PLIF),但仍有融合失败,残留神经症状,以及髂骨供区的并发症等许多弊端。
用于脊柱内固定器械和手术方法效果评价最常用的方法是生物力学评价,包括实验力学和理论生物力学方法。实验生物力学一般采用尸体骨或与人体形状,力学性能相似的新鲜小牛和猪的脊柱标本。理论生物力学实验即计算机数字模拟技术,最常用的是有限元分析方法。
本实验的目的就是对一种新的腰椎滑脱治疗方法-椎间加压植骨融合术的生物力学进行评价,通过与目前最常用的PLIF法进行比较,从局部生物力学稳定性和应力分布情况验证新方法的生物力学优点,为这种新的术式的临床应用提供理论支持。
IntroductionLumbar spondylolisthesis is not an infrequent finding and has been reported in approximately 6% of the adult population. Spondylolisthesis causes segmental instability with symptomatic nerve root compression that is unresponsive to conservative treatment, and it may necessitate decompression with stabilization. The surgical management of spondylolisthesis is a challenge because of the difficulties in achieving a reliable arthrodesis in the face of high mechanical forces in lumban spine. The lumbar spine can provide a hostile environment for successful bone fusion as it bears substantial axial, torsional, and translational loads. Translational loads are particularly relevant at the lumbosacral junction where the local anatomy acts to convert axial loads into translational and angular resultant force vectors. Furthermore, it is difficult to resect a disc completely or to perform a complete corpectomy. On one hand, aggressive endplate debridement may result in the loss of integrity of this vital component of the axial load - bearing complex. On the other hand, incomplete debridement may result in pseudar-throsis due to inadequate preparation of the graft bed.Several surgical techniques have been conducted using various internal fixation and fusion devices. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is one of the established methods of treatment for spondylolisthesis. The advantages of PLIF over other types of lumbar fusion are that it dynamically decompresses the neural structures by holding the vertebral bodies apart, fusing them into a single motion
segment, and it may have a higher rate of success in single - level fusion. Pedicle screw fixation has been used to increase the fusion rate, to correct deformities, and to provide early stabilization. However, construct failure often occurs following PLIF because of the large lumbosacral loads and cantilever pullout forces at this region.A new method of lumbosacral PLIF that has been used successfully in spon-dylolisthesis at our institution involves the posterior decompression, interverte-bral foraminal enlargement, reduction and posterior interbody compression fusion achieved through compression on the segmental pedicle screw system to make the posterior walls of adjacent vertebra contact. As lumbosacral fixation techniques and theories continue to develop, further understanding in terms of their comparative biomechanical properties is necessary. In the present study, we try to provide some insight into the biomechanical, theoretical, as well as practical findings about interbody compression fusion for the treatment of spondylolisthesis. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate and analyze the biomechanical features of interbody compression fusion using a calf spine model of simulated spondylolisthesis and a three - dimensional nonlinear finite element method respectively.MethodsBiomechanical evaluation in a Calf Spine ModelSpecimen PreparationA total of 48 fresh calf lumbar spines (Lj.j motion segments) were used in this investigation. All specimens were examined by radiograph to exclude occult fracture or abnormality. In preparation for biomechanical testing, the calf spinal specimens were thawed at room temperature and stripped of all residual musculature, with care taken to preserve all ligamentous attachments and maintain segmental integrity. The proximal and distal ends of the specimen were fixed to the materials testing machine ( BIONDC 858, Material Test System, Eden, Prairie, MN, USA) using the self-made clamp and bone cement (PMMA).Biomechanical testing
Nondestructive tests were performed under axial compression ( 500 N) , flexion ( 10.0 Nm) , extension ( 10. ONm) , right lateral bending (10. 0 Nm) , and left lateral bending (10. ONm). Load displacement curves were recorded. Each test was performed over 3 full cycles and data from the third cycle were obtained for further analysis. A cyclic compression force was applied as conditioning (500 10 N at 1 Hz for 100 cycles) to remove excess fluid from the disc and return the disc to its predeath height.Each intact lumbar spine was tested first (intact). Consequently, an L4 laminectomy, a bilateral L4 _5 facetectomy, and a radical discectomy ( with resection of both anterior and posterior longitudinal ligaments) were performed according to Panjabi method. The spondylolisthesis were stabilized by the conventional PLJF and interbody compression fusion (ICF) achieved through compression on the segmental pedicle screw system to make the posterior walls of adjacent vertebra contact respectively. All through the destabilizing and restabilizing procedures, great care was taken to avoid damaging the bilateral facet joints, and the capsules overlying the facet were left intact. The specimens were kept moist with saline spraying throughout the biomechanical testing to avoid the detrimental effects of ligament desiccation. These spondylolisthesis specimens were retested (PLIFand ICF).AnalysisStiffness values were calculated from the load displacement curves. A specific value (ratio of PLIF or ICF to intact) was calculated to evaluate the stiffness. Independent - samples T test analysis was performed to determine whether significant differences existed in stiffness and displacement between different surgical interventions. All significance comparisons were at P <0. 05. Statistical analyses were performed with statistical product and service solutions (SPSS) software.Finite element AnalysisNormal ModelFor the preparation of three - dimensional finite element model, L4 -L5 motion segment data were obtained from computed tomography (CT, Marconi MX8000, Philips) (at 2 mm wide increments) of the lumbar spine of a 19 -
year - old man who has no abnormal findings on roentgenography. In the global coordinate system, the cross - sectional plane on CT was considered to be the XY plane, and the Z axis was set vertical to the cross - sectional plane of the center of the intervertebral disc. To simplify preparation of the models, the differences in shape of the L4 L5 vertebral bodies were ignored. L4 L5 motion segments comprising a total of 146411 elements and 227847 nodes were developed.A three - dimensional isotropic solid element was used for modeling the cortical bone, cancellous bone, endplate, annulus fibers and nucleus pulposus. The material properties of each element were determined from the literature. Ligaments were modeled using the cable element, and each element was arranged in the anatomic direction. The cross - sectional area of each ligament and its nonlinear stress - strain behavior were obtained from the literature. The facet joint was treated as a nonlinear frictionless three - dimensional contact problem.Spondylolisthesis and fusion ModelsSpondylolisthesis model was prepared by resecting supraspinous, interspi-nous, posterior longitudinal flavum ligament and bilateral facet joints of L4 - 5 , as well as posterior half nucleus pulposus and vertebral arc on the normal model described above.The interbody fusion model was prepared by replacing the material properties of the outermost layer of the annulus of the standard model with those of cortical bone and by replacing the material properties inside the annulus and nucleus with those of cancellous bone.The conventional PLIF model (PLIF model) was prepared by adding pedicle screw system to the interbody fusion model described above, which consist of a total of 435968 elements and 84017 nodes. The interbody compression fusion model (ICF model) was prepared by making the posterior walls of adjacent vertebra contact and adding pedicle screw system to the interbody fusion model, the ICF model comprised a total of 633059 elements and 116946 nodes.Loading ConditionsWith the PLIF model and ICF model, the stress of 1200 N was applied to the screws. The inferior surface of the L5 vertebral body and its inferior facet
were fixed in all directions. 5 loads were used in this study. In compression loading, an axial compressive force of up to 500N was loaded on the center of the surface of the L4 vertebral body. In flexion - extension, lateral bending and torsion loading, the moment was applied on the surface of the L4 vertebral body up to 10 Nm. Each model was loaded while the response to compressive load, the response to flexion - extension, lateral bending and torsion loads, and the distribution of vonMises stress were analyzed and compared.Clinical evaluation17 patients, who suffered from isthmic and degenerative spondylolisthesis with more than 2mm displacement on the plain radiograph, were treated consecutively with posterior decompression, intervertebral foraminal enlargement, reduction and posterior interbody compression fusion achieved through compression on the segmental pedicle screw system to make the posterior walls of adjacent vertebra contact. The mean age at the time of surgery was 63.6 years ( range, 33 -76 years). Patients were followed up and evaluated for complications, neurological function and fusions.ResultsBiomechanical evaluation in a Calf Spine ModelThe interbody compression fusion showed higher rigidity than conventional PLIF. The rates of increase in stiffness in the compression, flexion and extension test were about 43% , 48% and 51% respectively (p < 0.05). The specific value of stiffness for ICF was 1.4 — 1.5 times greater than that of conventional PLIF.Finite element AnalysisResponse to loadsAt axial compression force, the ICF model showed the highest rigidity, followed by the PLIF and normal model. The rate of increase of the stiffness in the ICF model was about 31.6% , compared with the PLIF model. In all flexion -extension, lateral bending and torsion loads, the ICF model showed the highest rigidity. The rotation angles of flexion and extension decreased 37.6% and 39.
9%. Above findings were similar to those in calf spine specimens.VonMises Stress DistributionRegarding the VonMises stress distributions under compression loading, in the ICF models, the stress in the vertebral body and in interbody was up to 81. 1MPa and 46. 332 MPa respectively, while in the PLIF models, stress was 5. 609 MPa and 9.049 MPa.In both internal fixation models with flexion - extension, lateral bending and torsion loading, stress concentration was located the junction of screws and cortical bone, and the stress in response to torsion was the largest, up to 112. 752 MPa.Clinical evaluationAll patients underwent successful follow - up for an average of 24. 5 months, ranging from 12 to 32 months. No intraoperative and postoperative complications were observed. The neurological function of the patients was restored partially or complete. No patient had neurologic deterioration after surgery. The lumbar spine was stable during physical examination and all patients were satisfied with the surgery. Radiographs showed implants to be satisfactorily positioned in all cases. There were no cases of hardware failure, loss of reduction, or painful hardware requiring removal. No significant movement was detected on the dynamic films and all tomograms confirmed the presence of a bridging fusion mass. Radiographic evaluation showed close conjunction of adjacent posterior edges of vertebral body in 12 of 17 cases, and the distance between the posterior edge less than 3mm in the other 5 patients.ConclusionsThis biomechanical study showed that the new surgical procedure, interbody compression fusion by pedicle screw system, for spondylolisthesis was a stable construct compared with conventional PLIF techniques.It showed that the finite element technique can be used to predict clinically relevant biomechanical parameters in the lumbar spine. Finite element analysis confirmed the observation that interbody compression fusion was more rigid than
引文
1. Hisanori Mihara, MD, Katsuhiro Onari, MD, Boyle C. Cheng, PhD, et al. The Biomechanical Effects Of Spondylolysis and Its Treatment SPINE 2003; 28(3) : 235 - 238.
2. Mummaneni PV, Haid RW, Rodts GE. Lumbar interbody fusion: state - of - the - art technical advances. J Neurosurg Spine. 2004 Jul; 1 (1) :24 - 30.
3. Schlegel KF , Pon A. The biomechanics of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (IF) in spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop ,1985 ,193 :115
4. Evans J H , Eng B. Biomechanics of lumbar fusion. Clin Orthop ,1985 , 193 :38.
5. Cloward RB. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discsby vertebral body fusion : Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 1953;10:154 168.
6. Brodke D, Dick J, Kunz D,et al. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 1997;22(1):26 -31
7. Brian Brislin,MD,AlexanderR. Vaccaro,MD Advances in posterior lumbar interbody fusion Orthop Clin Nam 2002 ;33 :367 - 374
8. Panjabi MM,Abumi K,Duranceau J,et al. Biomechanial evaluation of spinal fixation devices: II. Stability provided by eight internal fixation devices Spine, 1988, 13 : 1135 - 1140.
9. Asazuma T, Masuoka K, Motosuneya T, et al.. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using dense hydroxyapatite blocks and autogenous iliac bone: clinical and radiographic examinations. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005 ; 18 Sup- pl:S41 -7.
10. Gurr KR,M cA fee PC, Shih CM. Biomechanical analysis of posterior in- strum entation system s after decomp ressive lam inectom y. An unstable calf spine model[ J ]. J B one Joint S urg Am , 1988, 70(5) : 680
11. Sears W. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: restoration of sagittal balance using insert - and - rotate interbody spacers. Spine J. 2005 ;5(2) :170 -9.
12. Zdeblick TA,Warden KE, Zou D, et al. A nterior sp inal fixators. A biom echanical in vitro study[J ]. Spine, 1993, 18 : 531.
13. Whitecloud TS, Butler JC. Anterior lumbar fusion utilizing transvertebral fibular graft. Spine 1988; 13 :370 4.
14. Wilke H J,Wenger K,Claes L. Testing criteria for spinal implants: recom - mendations for the standar dization of invitro stability testing of spinal implants, [ J] Eur Spine, 1998,7:148
15. Okuyama K , Abe E , Suzuki T , et al. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion : a retrospective study of complications after facet joint excision and pedicle screw fixation in 148 cases [J ]. Acta Orthop Scand ,1999 ,70(4) :329 ~34.
16. Pitzen T ,Matthis D ,MullerStorz H ,et al. Primary stability of PL IF (posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques a biomechanical and finite element analysis[J] . Zentralbl Neurochir , 1999 ,60 (3 ) : 114 ~ 120.
17. Barnes B ,Rodts GE ,McLaughlin MR ,et al. Threaded cor tical bone dowels for lumbar interbody fusion :over 1 year mean follow up in 28 patients [J ]. J Neurosurg ,2005 ,95(1 Suppl) :1 ~4.
18. Chitnavis B , Barbagallo G ,Selway R ,et al. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion for revision disc surgery : review of 50 cases in which carbon fiber cages were implanted [J ]. J Neurosurg ,2001 ,95 (2 Suppl) :190 ~5.
19. Wafa Tawackoli, Rex Marco, and Michael A. K. Liebschner, et al. The Effect of Compressive Axial Preload on the Flexibility of the Thoracolumbar Spine Spine 2004; 29: 988 - 993
20. Avinash G. Patwardhan, Robert M. Havey, Kevin P. Meade, et al. A Follower Load Increases the Load - Carrying Capacity of the Lumbar Spine in Compression Spine 1999 ;24:1003 -1009
21. Janevic J, Ashton - Miller JA, Schultz AB. Larger compressive preloads decrease lumbar motion segment ? exibility. J Orthop Res 1991 ;9:228 - 36.
22. Cheung KMC, Zhang YG, Lu DS, et al. Reduction of disc space distraction after anterior lumbar interbody fusion with autologous iliac crest graft. Spine, 2003,28(13 ) : 1385 -1389.
23. Kowalski RJ, Ferrara LA, Benzel EC. Biomechanics of bone fusion. Neu- rosurg Focus 2004; 10(4)
24. 贾连顺:腰椎滑脱和腰椎滑脱症.中国矫形外科杂志,2001;8:815 - 819
25. Martin Fusion of the lumbar spine - A consideration of the indications J Bone Joint Surg [ Br] 2002;84 - B :783 -94
26. Verlaan, C H Diekerhof, E Buskens, et al. Surgical Treatment of Traumatic Fractures of the Thoracic and Lumbar Spine. J Spine. 2004; 29(7) :803 -814.
27. Slosar PJ, Reynolds JB, Schofferman J, et al. Patient satisfaction after cir- cum ferential lumbar fusion. Spine 2000; 25 :722 — 6
28. Tandon V, Campbell F, Ross ER. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion: asso- ciation between disability and psychological disturbance in noncompensated patients. Spine 1999;24:1833 -8.
29. Leufven C, Nordwall A. Management of chronic disabling low back pain with 3600 fusion, posterolateral fusion, and pedicle screw instrumentation in patients with chronic disabling low back pain. Spine 1999; 24:2042 - 5.
30. Bernard T N Jr. Repeat lumbar spine surgery: factors influencing outcome. Spine 1993; 18: 2196 -200.
31. Hanley E N; David S M. Lumbar Arthrodesis for the Treatment of Back Pain . JBJS Vol. 81 - A(5) May 1999 pp 716 -730
32. Jaslow IA. Intercorporal bone graft in spinal fusion after disc removal. Surg Gyn Obstet 1946;82:215 8
33. P Tropiano, L Thollon, P J Arnoux, et al. Using a Finite Element Model to Evaluate Human Injuries Application to the HUMOS Model in Whiplash Situation. J Spine. 2004 ;29 (16) : 1709 1716.
34. Mark Rahm. Failure of Internal Fixation of Thoracolumbar Spine Fractures. Techniques in Orthopaedics. 2003; 17(4) :417 426.
35. Soini J. Lumbar disc space heights after external fixation and anterior inter- body fusion: A prospective 2 - year follow - up of clinical and radiographic results. J Spinal Disord 1994;7:487 94.
36. 王欢 刘学勇等 椎间加压融合治疗胸腰椎骨折脱位 中华骨科杂志 2004 , (12)714 -717
37. Keisuke Gotol, Naoya Tajimal, Etsuo Chosal, et al. Effects of lumbar spinal fusion on the other lumbar intervertebral levels (three - dimensional finite element analysis). J Orthop Sci .2003;8:577 - 584
38. Raghu N Natarajan, Robert B Garretson, Ashok Biyani, et al. Effects of Slip Severity and Loading Directions on the Stability of Isthmic Spondylo- listhesis: A Finite Element Model Study. J Spine. 2003; 28 ( 11) : 1103 1112.
39. Tian - Xia Qiu, Ee - Chon Teo, Kim - Kheng Lee, et al. Validation of T10 - T1 1 Finite Element Model and Determination of Instantaneous Axes of Rotations in Three Anatomical Planes. J Spine. 2003; 28 ( 24 ) : 2694 2699.
40. Kotani Yoshihisa, Cunningham Bryan W, Cappuccino Andrew, et al. The Role of Spinal Instrumentation in Augmenting Lumbar Posterolateral Fusion. J Spine. 1996; 21(3) : 278 - 287.
41. Belytschko T. Finite element stress analysis of an intervertebral disc[ J]. J biomech,1974,7:277.
42. Shirazi - Adl A, El - Rich M, Pop DG, Parnianpour M. Spinal muscle forces, internal loads and stability in standing under various postures and loads—application of kinematics - based algorithm Eur Spine J. 2004 Sep
42. Lee KK Teo EC Poroelastic analysis of lumbar spinal stability in combined compression and anterior shear Spinal Disord Tech. 2004 Oct;17 (5) :429 -38.
44. Zander T, Rohlmann A, Bergmann G. Analysis of simulated single ligament transection on the mechanical behaviour of a lumbar functional spinal unit. Biomed Tech ( Berl). 2004 Jan - Feb;49( 1 -2) :27 -32.
45. Natarajan RN, Williams JR, Andersson GB. . Recent advances in analytical modeling of lumbar disc degeneration Spine. 2004 Dec 1; 29 (23 ) : 2733 -41
46. Villemure I, Aubin CE. Biomechanical simulations of the spine deforma- tion process in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis from different pathogenesis hypotheses. Eur Spine J. 2004 Feb; 13(1): 83-90. Epub 2004 Jan 17.
47. Chosa E, Totoribe K, Tajima N. A biomechanical study of lumbar spondylolysis based on a three-dimensional finite element method. J Orthop Res. 2004 Jan; 22(1): 158-63.
48. Chen CS, Feng CK Biomechanical Analysis of the Disc Adjacent to Posterolateral Fusion with Laminectomy in Lumbar Spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005 Feb; 18(1): 58-65.
49. Lee KK, Teo EC, Fuss FK. Finite-element analysis for lumbar interbody fusion under axial loading. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2004 Mar; 51(3): 393-400.
50. Polikeit A, Ferguson SJ, Nolte LP, Orr TE. Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis. Eur Spine J. 2003 Aug; 12(4): 413-20. Epub 2002 Dec 19.
51. Koji Totoribe, Etsuo Chosa, and Naoya Tajima A Biomechanical Study of Lumbar Fusion Based on a Three-Dimensional Nonlinear Finite Element Method. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004; 17: 147 153
52. Goel VK, Kim YE, Lin TH and Weinstein JN. Ananalytical investigation of the mechanics of spinal instrumentation [J]. Spine, 1988, 13: 1003-1011.
53.袁野,靳安民,何丽英,等。利用CT扫描及CAD技术建立腰椎活动节段的有限元模型[J]。临床生物力学,2002;20(4):298-300.
54. E Chosa, K Goto, K Totoribe, et al. Analysis of the Effect of Lumbar Spine Fusion on the Superior Adjacent Intervertebral Disk in the Presence of Disk Degeneration, Using the Three-Dimensional Finite Element Method. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004; 17: 134 139
55. Wayne Z Kong, Vijay K Goel. Ability of the Finite Element Models to Predict Response of the Human Spine to Sinusoidal Vertical Vibration. J Spine. 2003; 28: 1961 1967.
56. Norio Kawahara, Hideki Murakami, Akira Yoshida, et al. Reconstruction After Total Sacrectomy Using a New Instrumentation Technique. J Spine. 2003; 28(14): 1567 1572.
57. Avisash G P, Gerard C, Alexander JG, et al. Compressive preload improves the stability of anterior lumbar interbody fusion gage constructs. Journal of bone and joint surgery. 2003; 85: 1749-1756.
58. Yamamoto I, Panjabi MM, Crisco T, et al. Three-dimensional movement of the whole lumbar spine and lumbosacral joint. Spine 1989; 14: 1256 60.
59. White AA, Panjabi MM. Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1978.
60. Han JS, Goel VK, Ahn JY, Winterbottom J, McGowan D, Weinstein J, Cook T. Loads in the spinal structures during lifting: development of a three-dimensional comprehensive biomechanical model. Eur Spine J. 1995; 4: 153-68
61. Krismer M, Haid C, Behensky H, et al. Motion in lumbar functional spine units during side bending and axial rotation moments depending on the degree of degeneration. Spine 2000; 25: 2020-7.
62. Simmons JW. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior elements as chip grafts. Clin Orthop, 1985, 193: 85-89
63. Vamvanij V, Fredrickson BE, Thorpe JM, et al. Surgical treatment of internal disc disruption: an outcome study of four fusion techniques. J Spinal Disord. 1998; 11: 375-382.
64. Molinari R, Sloboda JFM, Arrington EC. Low-Grade Isthmic Spondylolisthesis Treated with Instrumented Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in U. S. Servicemen. SPINE 2005 Vol. 18(2); S24-S29
65. Bono CM and Lee CK: The Influence of Subcliagnosis on Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes. After Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Disc Disorders: An Analysis of the Literature From Two Decades. Spine 2005; Vol. 30(2): 227-234
66. Greiner-Perth R, Boehm H, Allam Y, Elsaghir H, Franke J. Reoperation Rate After Instrumented Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Report on 1680 Cases. Spine. 2004 Nov 15; 29(22): 2516-20.
67.丁宇 阮狄克,下腰椎不同融合方法的即刻与疲劳后稳定性。中国脊柱脊髓杂志2002年第12卷第5期348页
68. Totoribe K, Chosa E, Tajima N. A biomechanical study of lumbar fusion based on a three - dimensional nonlinear finite element method. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004 Apr;17(2) :147 -53.
69. Ogilvie JW. Complications in Spondylolisthesis Surgery. Spine 2005 ; 30 (6s) :S97 S101
70. Boden SD. Overview of the biology of lumbar spine fusion and principles for selecting a bone graft substitute. Spine, 2002, 27(16s) :S26 -S31.
71. Ferrara LA, and Benzel EC. Biomechanics of Interbody Fusion. Techniques in Neurosurgery 2001 Vol.7, No.2, pp. 100 109
72. MiharaH, Onari K, Cheng BC, David SM and Zdeblick TA. The Biomechanical Effects Of Spondylolysis and Its Treatment. SPINE 2003 Volume 28, Number 3, pp 235 - 238
73. Matter AD, McNeney B, Loeser JD, Deyo RA. 5 - year reoperation rates after different types of lumbar spine surgery. Spine 1998 ;23 :814 -20.
74. Bono CM and Lee CK: Critical Analysis of Trends in Fusion for Degenerative Disc Disease Over the Past 20 Years: Influence of Technique on Fusion Rate and Clinical Outcome. Spine 2004 ;29(4) :455 - 463
75. Gertzbein SD, Betz R, Clements D, et al. Semirigid instrumentation in the management of lumbar spinal conditions combined with circumferential fusion. A multicenter study. Spine 1996;21:1918 - 26.
76. Kwon BK and Albert TJ. Adult Low - Grade Acquired Spondylolytic Spondylolisthesis Evaluation and Management. SPINE 2005 Vol. 30 (6S) S35 - S41
77. Molz FJ,Partin JI and Kirkpatrick JS. The Acute Effects of Posterior Fusion Instrumentation on Kinematics and Intradiscal Pressure of the Human Lumbar Spine. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 2003 Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 171 - 179
78. Jost B, Cripton PA, Lund T, Oxland TR, Lippuner K, Jaeger P, Nolte LP. Compressive strength of interbody cages in the lumbar spine: the effect of cage shape, posterior instrumentation and bone density. Eur Spine J. 1998;7(2) :132 -41.
79. Oda Itaru, Abumi Kuniyoshi , Yu Bin - Sheng, et al. Types of spinal in- stability that require interbody support in posterior lumbar reconstruction: An in vitro biomechanical investigation. Spine, 2003, 28 (14) : 1573 - 1580.
80. Molinari MRW, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG and Baldus C. Anterior Column Support in Surgery for High - Grade, Isthmic Spondylolisthesis. CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH 2002 Number 394, pp. 109 120
81. Luk KDK, Chow DHK and Holmes A, Vertical Instability in Spondylolisthesis A Traction Radiographic Assessment Technique and the Principle of Management. SPINE 2003 Volume 28, Number 8, pp 819 827
82. Wong HK, Goh JCH, Chen PS, Goh PS, Tan L, Bose K. Cylindrical interbody fusion cage fit and facetectomy in PLIF. Presented at the annual meeting of the North American Spine Society, New York, NY, 1997.
83. Andreas K. Mechanical Principles of Compressive Interbody Fusion. SPINE 1996 Vol.21(7) :821 -826
84. Hoshijima K, Nightingale RW, Yu JR, Richardson WJ, Harper KD, Yamamoto H, Myers BS. Strength and stability of posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Comparison of titanium fiber mesh implant and tricortical bone graft. Spine. 1997 Jun 1 ;22(11) :1181 -8.
85. Asazuma T, Masuoka K, Motosuneya T, Tsuji T, Yasuoka H, Fujikawa K. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using dense hydroxyapatite blocks and autogenous iliac bone: clinical and radiographic examinations. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005 Feb;18 Suppl:S41 -7
86. Arai Y, Takahashi M, Kurosawa H, Shitoto K. Comparative study of iliac bone graft and carbon cage with local bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2002 Jun; 10(1) :1 -7.
87. Jutte PC, Castelein RM. Complications of pedicle screws in lumbar and lumbosacral fusions in 105 consecutive primary operations. Eur Spine J. 2002 Dec;11(6) :594 -8.
88. Rahm M. Failure of internal fixation of thoracolumbar spine fractures. Techniques in Orthopaedics, 2003, 17(4) :417 -426.
89. Rohlmann A, Graichen F, Weber U, Bergmann G.2000 Volvo Award win- ner in biomechanical studies: Monitoring in vivo implant loads with a telemeterized internal spinal fixation device. Spine. 2000 Dec 1; 25(23): 2981-6.
90.郝勇 周跃:目前临床应用的腰椎椎间融合器的现状与进展。骨与关节损伤杂志2003年12月第18卷第12期854页
91. Adam C, Pearcy M, McCombe P. Stress analysis of interbody fusion finite element modelling of intervertebral implant and vertebral body. Clin Biomech ( Bristol, Avon). 2003 May; 18(4): 265-72.
92. Hee HT, Castro FP, Majd ME, Holt RTand Myers L. Anterior/Posterior Lumbar Fusion Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Analysis of Complications and Predictive Factors. Journal of Spinal Disorders 2001 Vol. 14(6): 533 540
93. Wong HK, Goh JCH and Goh PS. Paired Cylindrical Interbody Cage Fit and Facetectomy in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in an Asian Population. SPINE 2001 Vol. 26, (5): 572 577
94. Phillips FM and Cunningham B. Intertransverse Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Spine 2002; 27: E37 E41
95. Moller H, Sundin A, Hedlund R. Symptoms, signs and functional disability in adult spondylolisthesis. Spine 2000; 25: 683-9.
96. Kettler A, Wilke HJ, Dietl R, Krammer M, Lumenta C, Claes L. Stabilizing effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages before and after cyclic loading. J Neurosurg. 2000 Jan; 92(1 Suppl): 87-92
97. Kasai Y, Iida R, Uchida A. Metal concentrations in the serum and hair of patients with titanium alloy spinal implants. Spine. 2003; 28: 1320 1326.
98. Closkey RW, Parsons JR , Blacksin MF, et al. Mechanics of interbody spinal fusion: analysis of critical bone graft area. Spine 1993, 18: 1011.
99. Adam C, Pearcy M, McCombe P. Stress analysis of interbody fusion-finite element modelling of intervertebral implant and vertebral body. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2003 May; 18(4): 265-72.
100. Komblum MB,. Fischgrund JS, Herkowitz HN, Abraham DA, Berkower DL and Ditk off JS. Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis With Spinal Stenosis. Spine 2004; 29(7): 726 734
101. Sengupta DK and Herkowitz HN. Degenerative Spondylolisthesis. SPINE 2005 Vol.30, Number 6S, pp S71 - S81
102. Lin PM, Cautilli RA, Joyce MF. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Orthop, 1983,180:154 -168.
103. Petraco DM, Spivak, JM, Cappadona JG, Kummer F J, Neuwirth MG.. An Anatomic Evaluation of L5 Nerve Stretch in Spondylolisthesis Reduction. Spine 1996 Vol.21 (10) ? 15:1133-1138
104. Cinotti G, De Santis P, Nofroni I, et al. Stenosis of lumbar intervertebral foramen: Anatomic Study on Predisposing Factors. Spine, 2002, 27 ( 3 ) : 223 -229.
105. Kowalski RJ, Ferrara LA and Benzel EC. Biomechanics of the Spine. Neu- rosurg Q 2005 Vol15, Number 1 :42 59
106. Klemme WR, Owens BD, Dhawan A, et al. Lumbar sagittal contour after posterior interbody fusion. Spine. 2001 ;26(5) :534 537.
107. Kim KW, Chung JW, Park JB, Song SW, Ha KY andAn HS. The Course of the Nerve Root in the Neural Foramen and Its Relationship with Forami- nal Entrapment or Impingement in Adult Patients with Lumbar Isthmic Spondylolisthesis and Radicular Pain. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004; 17(3) : 220 225
108. Steinmann JC, Herkowitz HN. Pseudarthrosis of the spine. Clin Orthop, 1992, 284:80 -90.
109. Steffen T, Tsantrizos A, Aebi M. Effect of implant design and endplate preparation on the compressive strength of interbody fusion constructs. Spine 2000;
110. Brodsky AE, Kovalsky ES, Khalil MA. Correlation of radiographic assess- ment of lumbar spine fusions with surgical exploration. Spine 1991; 16: S261 5.
111. Boos N, Marchesi D, Zuber K, et al. Treatment of severe spondylolisthesis by reduction and pedicular fixation. Spine 1993; 18:1655 61.
112. Bradford D, Boachie 0. Treatment of severe spondylolisthesis by anterior and posterior reduction and stabilization. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990; 72: 1060 6.
2. Mummaneni PV, Haid RW, Rodts GE. Lumbar interbody fusion: state - of - the - art technical advances. J Neurosurg Spine. 2004 Jul; 1 (1) :24 - 30.
3. Schlegel KF , Pon A. The biomechanics of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (IF) in spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop ,1985 ,193 :115
4. Evans J H , Eng B. Biomechanics of lumbar fusion. Clin Orthop ,1985 , 193 :38.
5. Cloward RB. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discsby vertebral body fusion : Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 1953;10:154 168.
6. Brodke D, Dick J, Kunz D,et al. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 1997;22(1):26 -31
7. Brian Brislin,MD,AlexanderR. Vaccaro,MD Advances in posterior lumbar interbody fusion Orthop Clin Nam 2002 ;33 :367 - 374
8. Panjabi MM,Abumi K,Duranceau J,et al. Biomechanial evaluation of spinal fixation devices: II. Stability provided by eight internal fixation devices Spine, 1988, 13 : 1135 - 1140.
9. Asazuma T, Masuoka K, Motosuneya T, et al.. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using dense hydroxyapatite blocks and autogenous iliac bone: clinical and radiographic examinations. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005 ; 18 Sup- pl:S41 -7.
10. Gurr KR,M cA fee PC, Shih CM. Biomechanical analysis of posterior in- strum entation system s after decomp ressive lam inectom y. An unstable calf spine model[ J ]. J B one Joint S urg Am , 1988, 70(5) : 680
11. Sears W. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: restoration of sagittal balance using insert - and - rotate interbody spacers. Spine J. 2005 ;5(2) :170 -9.
12. Zdeblick TA,Warden KE, Zou D, et al. A nterior sp inal fixators. A biom echanical in vitro study[J ]. Spine, 1993, 18 : 531.
13. Whitecloud TS, Butler JC. Anterior lumbar fusion utilizing transvertebral fibular graft. Spine 1988; 13 :370 4.
14. Wilke H J,Wenger K,Claes L. Testing criteria for spinal implants: recom - mendations for the standar dization of invitro stability testing of spinal implants, [ J] Eur Spine, 1998,7:148
15. Okuyama K , Abe E , Suzuki T , et al. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion : a retrospective study of complications after facet joint excision and pedicle screw fixation in 148 cases [J ]. Acta Orthop Scand ,1999 ,70(4) :329 ~34.
16. Pitzen T ,Matthis D ,MullerStorz H ,et al. Primary stability of PL IF (posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques a biomechanical and finite element analysis[J] . Zentralbl Neurochir , 1999 ,60 (3 ) : 114 ~ 120.
17. Barnes B ,Rodts GE ,McLaughlin MR ,et al. Threaded cor tical bone dowels for lumbar interbody fusion :over 1 year mean follow up in 28 patients [J ]. J Neurosurg ,2005 ,95(1 Suppl) :1 ~4.
18. Chitnavis B , Barbagallo G ,Selway R ,et al. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion for revision disc surgery : review of 50 cases in which carbon fiber cages were implanted [J ]. J Neurosurg ,2001 ,95 (2 Suppl) :190 ~5.
19. Wafa Tawackoli, Rex Marco, and Michael A. K. Liebschner, et al. The Effect of Compressive Axial Preload on the Flexibility of the Thoracolumbar Spine Spine 2004; 29: 988 - 993
20. Avinash G. Patwardhan, Robert M. Havey, Kevin P. Meade, et al. A Follower Load Increases the Load - Carrying Capacity of the Lumbar Spine in Compression Spine 1999 ;24:1003 -1009
21. Janevic J, Ashton - Miller JA, Schultz AB. Larger compressive preloads decrease lumbar motion segment ? exibility. J Orthop Res 1991 ;9:228 - 36.
22. Cheung KMC, Zhang YG, Lu DS, et al. Reduction of disc space distraction after anterior lumbar interbody fusion with autologous iliac crest graft. Spine, 2003,28(13 ) : 1385 -1389.
23. Kowalski RJ, Ferrara LA, Benzel EC. Biomechanics of bone fusion. Neu- rosurg Focus 2004; 10(4)
24. 贾连顺:腰椎滑脱和腰椎滑脱症.中国矫形外科杂志,2001;8:815 - 819
25. Martin Fusion of the lumbar spine - A consideration of the indications J Bone Joint Surg [ Br] 2002;84 - B :783 -94
26. Verlaan, C H Diekerhof, E Buskens, et al. Surgical Treatment of Traumatic Fractures of the Thoracic and Lumbar Spine. J Spine. 2004; 29(7) :803 -814.
27. Slosar PJ, Reynolds JB, Schofferman J, et al. Patient satisfaction after cir- cum ferential lumbar fusion. Spine 2000; 25 :722 — 6
28. Tandon V, Campbell F, Ross ER. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion: asso- ciation between disability and psychological disturbance in noncompensated patients. Spine 1999;24:1833 -8.
29. Leufven C, Nordwall A. Management of chronic disabling low back pain with 3600 fusion, posterolateral fusion, and pedicle screw instrumentation in patients with chronic disabling low back pain. Spine 1999; 24:2042 - 5.
30. Bernard T N Jr. Repeat lumbar spine surgery: factors influencing outcome. Spine 1993; 18: 2196 -200.
31. Hanley E N; David S M. Lumbar Arthrodesis for the Treatment of Back Pain . JBJS Vol. 81 - A(5) May 1999 pp 716 -730
32. Jaslow IA. Intercorporal bone graft in spinal fusion after disc removal. Surg Gyn Obstet 1946;82:215 8
33. P Tropiano, L Thollon, P J Arnoux, et al. Using a Finite Element Model to Evaluate Human Injuries Application to the HUMOS Model in Whiplash Situation. J Spine. 2004 ;29 (16) : 1709 1716.
34. Mark Rahm. Failure of Internal Fixation of Thoracolumbar Spine Fractures. Techniques in Orthopaedics. 2003; 17(4) :417 426.
35. Soini J. Lumbar disc space heights after external fixation and anterior inter- body fusion: A prospective 2 - year follow - up of clinical and radiographic results. J Spinal Disord 1994;7:487 94.
36. 王欢 刘学勇等 椎间加压融合治疗胸腰椎骨折脱位 中华骨科杂志 2004 , (12)714 -717
37. Keisuke Gotol, Naoya Tajimal, Etsuo Chosal, et al. Effects of lumbar spinal fusion on the other lumbar intervertebral levels (three - dimensional finite element analysis). J Orthop Sci .2003;8:577 - 584
38. Raghu N Natarajan, Robert B Garretson, Ashok Biyani, et al. Effects of Slip Severity and Loading Directions on the Stability of Isthmic Spondylo- listhesis: A Finite Element Model Study. J Spine. 2003; 28 ( 11) : 1103 1112.
39. Tian - Xia Qiu, Ee - Chon Teo, Kim - Kheng Lee, et al. Validation of T10 - T1 1 Finite Element Model and Determination of Instantaneous Axes of Rotations in Three Anatomical Planes. J Spine. 2003; 28 ( 24 ) : 2694 2699.
40. Kotani Yoshihisa, Cunningham Bryan W, Cappuccino Andrew, et al. The Role of Spinal Instrumentation in Augmenting Lumbar Posterolateral Fusion. J Spine. 1996; 21(3) : 278 - 287.
41. Belytschko T. Finite element stress analysis of an intervertebral disc[ J]. J biomech,1974,7:277.
42. Shirazi - Adl A, El - Rich M, Pop DG, Parnianpour M. Spinal muscle forces, internal loads and stability in standing under various postures and loads—application of kinematics - based algorithm Eur Spine J. 2004 Sep
42. Lee KK Teo EC Poroelastic analysis of lumbar spinal stability in combined compression and anterior shear Spinal Disord Tech. 2004 Oct;17 (5) :429 -38.
44. Zander T, Rohlmann A, Bergmann G. Analysis of simulated single ligament transection on the mechanical behaviour of a lumbar functional spinal unit. Biomed Tech ( Berl). 2004 Jan - Feb;49( 1 -2) :27 -32.
45. Natarajan RN, Williams JR, Andersson GB. . Recent advances in analytical modeling of lumbar disc degeneration Spine. 2004 Dec 1; 29 (23 ) : 2733 -41
46. Villemure I, Aubin CE. Biomechanical simulations of the spine deforma- tion process in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis from different pathogenesis hypotheses. Eur Spine J. 2004 Feb; 13(1): 83-90. Epub 2004 Jan 17.
47. Chosa E, Totoribe K, Tajima N. A biomechanical study of lumbar spondylolysis based on a three-dimensional finite element method. J Orthop Res. 2004 Jan; 22(1): 158-63.
48. Chen CS, Feng CK Biomechanical Analysis of the Disc Adjacent to Posterolateral Fusion with Laminectomy in Lumbar Spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005 Feb; 18(1): 58-65.
49. Lee KK, Teo EC, Fuss FK. Finite-element analysis for lumbar interbody fusion under axial loading. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2004 Mar; 51(3): 393-400.
50. Polikeit A, Ferguson SJ, Nolte LP, Orr TE. Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis. Eur Spine J. 2003 Aug; 12(4): 413-20. Epub 2002 Dec 19.
51. Koji Totoribe, Etsuo Chosa, and Naoya Tajima A Biomechanical Study of Lumbar Fusion Based on a Three-Dimensional Nonlinear Finite Element Method. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004; 17: 147 153
52. Goel VK, Kim YE, Lin TH and Weinstein JN. Ananalytical investigation of the mechanics of spinal instrumentation [J]. Spine, 1988, 13: 1003-1011.
53.袁野,靳安民,何丽英,等。利用CT扫描及CAD技术建立腰椎活动节段的有限元模型[J]。临床生物力学,2002;20(4):298-300.
54. E Chosa, K Goto, K Totoribe, et al. Analysis of the Effect of Lumbar Spine Fusion on the Superior Adjacent Intervertebral Disk in the Presence of Disk Degeneration, Using the Three-Dimensional Finite Element Method. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004; 17: 134 139
55. Wayne Z Kong, Vijay K Goel. Ability of the Finite Element Models to Predict Response of the Human Spine to Sinusoidal Vertical Vibration. J Spine. 2003; 28: 1961 1967.
56. Norio Kawahara, Hideki Murakami, Akira Yoshida, et al. Reconstruction After Total Sacrectomy Using a New Instrumentation Technique. J Spine. 2003; 28(14): 1567 1572.
57. Avisash G P, Gerard C, Alexander JG, et al. Compressive preload improves the stability of anterior lumbar interbody fusion gage constructs. Journal of bone and joint surgery. 2003; 85: 1749-1756.
58. Yamamoto I, Panjabi MM, Crisco T, et al. Three-dimensional movement of the whole lumbar spine and lumbosacral joint. Spine 1989; 14: 1256 60.
59. White AA, Panjabi MM. Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1978.
60. Han JS, Goel VK, Ahn JY, Winterbottom J, McGowan D, Weinstein J, Cook T. Loads in the spinal structures during lifting: development of a three-dimensional comprehensive biomechanical model. Eur Spine J. 1995; 4: 153-68
61. Krismer M, Haid C, Behensky H, et al. Motion in lumbar functional spine units during side bending and axial rotation moments depending on the degree of degeneration. Spine 2000; 25: 2020-7.
62. Simmons JW. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior elements as chip grafts. Clin Orthop, 1985, 193: 85-89
63. Vamvanij V, Fredrickson BE, Thorpe JM, et al. Surgical treatment of internal disc disruption: an outcome study of four fusion techniques. J Spinal Disord. 1998; 11: 375-382.
64. Molinari R, Sloboda JFM, Arrington EC. Low-Grade Isthmic Spondylolisthesis Treated with Instrumented Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in U. S. Servicemen. SPINE 2005 Vol. 18(2); S24-S29
65. Bono CM and Lee CK: The Influence of Subcliagnosis on Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes. After Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Disc Disorders: An Analysis of the Literature From Two Decades. Spine 2005; Vol. 30(2): 227-234
66. Greiner-Perth R, Boehm H, Allam Y, Elsaghir H, Franke J. Reoperation Rate After Instrumented Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Report on 1680 Cases. Spine. 2004 Nov 15; 29(22): 2516-20.
67.丁宇 阮狄克,下腰椎不同融合方法的即刻与疲劳后稳定性。中国脊柱脊髓杂志2002年第12卷第5期348页
68. Totoribe K, Chosa E, Tajima N. A biomechanical study of lumbar fusion based on a three - dimensional nonlinear finite element method. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004 Apr;17(2) :147 -53.
69. Ogilvie JW. Complications in Spondylolisthesis Surgery. Spine 2005 ; 30 (6s) :S97 S101
70. Boden SD. Overview of the biology of lumbar spine fusion and principles for selecting a bone graft substitute. Spine, 2002, 27(16s) :S26 -S31.
71. Ferrara LA, and Benzel EC. Biomechanics of Interbody Fusion. Techniques in Neurosurgery 2001 Vol.7, No.2, pp. 100 109
72. MiharaH, Onari K, Cheng BC, David SM and Zdeblick TA. The Biomechanical Effects Of Spondylolysis and Its Treatment. SPINE 2003 Volume 28, Number 3, pp 235 - 238
73. Matter AD, McNeney B, Loeser JD, Deyo RA. 5 - year reoperation rates after different types of lumbar spine surgery. Spine 1998 ;23 :814 -20.
74. Bono CM and Lee CK: Critical Analysis of Trends in Fusion for Degenerative Disc Disease Over the Past 20 Years: Influence of Technique on Fusion Rate and Clinical Outcome. Spine 2004 ;29(4) :455 - 463
75. Gertzbein SD, Betz R, Clements D, et al. Semirigid instrumentation in the management of lumbar spinal conditions combined with circumferential fusion. A multicenter study. Spine 1996;21:1918 - 26.
76. Kwon BK and Albert TJ. Adult Low - Grade Acquired Spondylolytic Spondylolisthesis Evaluation and Management. SPINE 2005 Vol. 30 (6S) S35 - S41
77. Molz FJ,Partin JI and Kirkpatrick JS. The Acute Effects of Posterior Fusion Instrumentation on Kinematics and Intradiscal Pressure of the Human Lumbar Spine. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 2003 Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 171 - 179
78. Jost B, Cripton PA, Lund T, Oxland TR, Lippuner K, Jaeger P, Nolte LP. Compressive strength of interbody cages in the lumbar spine: the effect of cage shape, posterior instrumentation and bone density. Eur Spine J. 1998;7(2) :132 -41.
79. Oda Itaru, Abumi Kuniyoshi , Yu Bin - Sheng, et al. Types of spinal in- stability that require interbody support in posterior lumbar reconstruction: An in vitro biomechanical investigation. Spine, 2003, 28 (14) : 1573 - 1580.
80. Molinari MRW, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG and Baldus C. Anterior Column Support in Surgery for High - Grade, Isthmic Spondylolisthesis. CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH 2002 Number 394, pp. 109 120
81. Luk KDK, Chow DHK and Holmes A, Vertical Instability in Spondylolisthesis A Traction Radiographic Assessment Technique and the Principle of Management. SPINE 2003 Volume 28, Number 8, pp 819 827
82. Wong HK, Goh JCH, Chen PS, Goh PS, Tan L, Bose K. Cylindrical interbody fusion cage fit and facetectomy in PLIF. Presented at the annual meeting of the North American Spine Society, New York, NY, 1997.
83. Andreas K. Mechanical Principles of Compressive Interbody Fusion. SPINE 1996 Vol.21(7) :821 -826
84. Hoshijima K, Nightingale RW, Yu JR, Richardson WJ, Harper KD, Yamamoto H, Myers BS. Strength and stability of posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Comparison of titanium fiber mesh implant and tricortical bone graft. Spine. 1997 Jun 1 ;22(11) :1181 -8.
85. Asazuma T, Masuoka K, Motosuneya T, Tsuji T, Yasuoka H, Fujikawa K. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using dense hydroxyapatite blocks and autogenous iliac bone: clinical and radiographic examinations. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005 Feb;18 Suppl:S41 -7
86. Arai Y, Takahashi M, Kurosawa H, Shitoto K. Comparative study of iliac bone graft and carbon cage with local bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2002 Jun; 10(1) :1 -7.
87. Jutte PC, Castelein RM. Complications of pedicle screws in lumbar and lumbosacral fusions in 105 consecutive primary operations. Eur Spine J. 2002 Dec;11(6) :594 -8.
88. Rahm M. Failure of internal fixation of thoracolumbar spine fractures. Techniques in Orthopaedics, 2003, 17(4) :417 -426.
89. Rohlmann A, Graichen F, Weber U, Bergmann G.2000 Volvo Award win- ner in biomechanical studies: Monitoring in vivo implant loads with a telemeterized internal spinal fixation device. Spine. 2000 Dec 1; 25(23): 2981-6.
90.郝勇 周跃:目前临床应用的腰椎椎间融合器的现状与进展。骨与关节损伤杂志2003年12月第18卷第12期854页
91. Adam C, Pearcy M, McCombe P. Stress analysis of interbody fusion finite element modelling of intervertebral implant and vertebral body. Clin Biomech ( Bristol, Avon). 2003 May; 18(4): 265-72.
92. Hee HT, Castro FP, Majd ME, Holt RTand Myers L. Anterior/Posterior Lumbar Fusion Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Analysis of Complications and Predictive Factors. Journal of Spinal Disorders 2001 Vol. 14(6): 533 540
93. Wong HK, Goh JCH and Goh PS. Paired Cylindrical Interbody Cage Fit and Facetectomy in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in an Asian Population. SPINE 2001 Vol. 26, (5): 572 577
94. Phillips FM and Cunningham B. Intertransverse Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Spine 2002; 27: E37 E41
95. Moller H, Sundin A, Hedlund R. Symptoms, signs and functional disability in adult spondylolisthesis. Spine 2000; 25: 683-9.
96. Kettler A, Wilke HJ, Dietl R, Krammer M, Lumenta C, Claes L. Stabilizing effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages before and after cyclic loading. J Neurosurg. 2000 Jan; 92(1 Suppl): 87-92
97. Kasai Y, Iida R, Uchida A. Metal concentrations in the serum and hair of patients with titanium alloy spinal implants. Spine. 2003; 28: 1320 1326.
98. Closkey RW, Parsons JR , Blacksin MF, et al. Mechanics of interbody spinal fusion: analysis of critical bone graft area. Spine 1993, 18: 1011.
99. Adam C, Pearcy M, McCombe P. Stress analysis of interbody fusion-finite element modelling of intervertebral implant and vertebral body. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2003 May; 18(4): 265-72.
100. Komblum MB,. Fischgrund JS, Herkowitz HN, Abraham DA, Berkower DL and Ditk off JS. Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis With Spinal Stenosis. Spine 2004; 29(7): 726 734
101. Sengupta DK and Herkowitz HN. Degenerative Spondylolisthesis. SPINE 2005 Vol.30, Number 6S, pp S71 - S81
102. Lin PM, Cautilli RA, Joyce MF. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Orthop, 1983,180:154 -168.
103. Petraco DM, Spivak, JM, Cappadona JG, Kummer F J, Neuwirth MG.. An Anatomic Evaluation of L5 Nerve Stretch in Spondylolisthesis Reduction. Spine 1996 Vol.21 (10) ? 15:1133-1138
104. Cinotti G, De Santis P, Nofroni I, et al. Stenosis of lumbar intervertebral foramen: Anatomic Study on Predisposing Factors. Spine, 2002, 27 ( 3 ) : 223 -229.
105. Kowalski RJ, Ferrara LA and Benzel EC. Biomechanics of the Spine. Neu- rosurg Q 2005 Vol15, Number 1 :42 59
106. Klemme WR, Owens BD, Dhawan A, et al. Lumbar sagittal contour after posterior interbody fusion. Spine. 2001 ;26(5) :534 537.
107. Kim KW, Chung JW, Park JB, Song SW, Ha KY andAn HS. The Course of the Nerve Root in the Neural Foramen and Its Relationship with Forami- nal Entrapment or Impingement in Adult Patients with Lumbar Isthmic Spondylolisthesis and Radicular Pain. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004; 17(3) : 220 225
108. Steinmann JC, Herkowitz HN. Pseudarthrosis of the spine. Clin Orthop, 1992, 284:80 -90.
109. Steffen T, Tsantrizos A, Aebi M. Effect of implant design and endplate preparation on the compressive strength of interbody fusion constructs. Spine 2000;
110. Brodsky AE, Kovalsky ES, Khalil MA. Correlation of radiographic assess- ment of lumbar spine fusions with surgical exploration. Spine 1991; 16: S261 5.
111. Boos N, Marchesi D, Zuber K, et al. Treatment of severe spondylolisthesis by reduction and pedicular fixation. Spine 1993; 18:1655 61.
112. Bradford D, Boachie 0. Treatment of severe spondylolisthesis by anterior and posterior reduction and stabilization. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990; 72: 1060 6.