摘要
目的:探讨置入胸椎“椎弓根—肋骨”单元(简称PRU)螺钉的应用解剖和力学性能。方法:测量35具尸体标本PRU横径(W)、纵径(H)、置入螺钉长度(L)和中心轴水平面成角(E)。6具较新鲜标本,在T10、在T11和T12分别置入椎弓根螺钉(A组)、PRU螺钉(B组)和穿破椎弓根外侧皮质螺钉(C组),测量3组螺钉的最大拔出力F-max和拔出4mm的能量吸收值E-4mm。结果:W为13.2～16.1mm,L为38.5～52.7mm,E为28.3°～15.4°,H为6.3～7.0mm。A组F-max为808N,E-4mm1709Nm,B组F-max812N,E-4mm1720Nm,C组F-max795N,E-4mm1687Nm,经t检验,3组间差异无显著性意义(P>0.05)。结论:PRU置入螺钉的安全范围明显大于椎弓根螺钉,同时具有良好的力学稳定性能。
Objective： To study applied anatomy and mechanical test for placement of screw of pedicle-rib unit （PRU） in the thoracic spine. Methods： 35 specimens ofcadavetic thoracic spine were used to measure the transverse distancc（W）,longitudinal distance（H）.length（L） and angulation in the transverse plane（E）.In the T10 T11 and T12 segments of 6 fresh cadaveric specimens.pedicle screw （group A）,PRU screw （group B）and lateral penetrating pedicle screw （group C） were placed respectively to measure the maximum axial pull-out strength （F-max） and the energy absorption value （E-4mm） during pulling out of the screws for 4mm. Results： The W were 13.2-16.1 mm, L 38.5-52.7 mm, E 28.3°-15.4°,H 6.3-7.0mm. In group A,the F-max was 808N,E-4 mm 1709 Nm.In group B, the F-max was 812 N,E-4 mm 1720Nm. In group C,the F-max was 795N,E-4 mm 687 Nm.There were no significantly statistical differences among the three groups （P〉0.05）. Conclusion： Placement of PRU screw is safer than that of pedicle screw.and has better mechanical stability.
出处
《中国临床解剖学杂志》
CSCD
北大核心
2005年第5期538-539,共2页
Chinese Journal of Clinical Anatomy
