IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/gcmbxx/v25y2022i5p487-498.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biomechanical comparative evaluation of percutaneous fixations with vertebral expansion for vertebral compression fractures: an experimental and finite element study

Author

Listed:
  • Le Gallo Lucas
  • V. P. C. Lima Lucas
  • Persohn Sylvain
  • Nérot Agathe
  • Rousseau Marc-Antoine
  • Simon Laurie
  • Skalli Wafa

Abstract

This study uses in vitro experiments and validated finite element models (FEM) to analyze the effect of posterior fixation, alone or associated with expandable device (ED) and/or cement. 3-dimensional FEMs of intact, fractured and instrumented spine were built and compared with experimental load-displacement curves. FEM ranges of motion were within the experimental corridors. Stresses appeared sensitive to both implant configuration and fracture severity with a stress reduction up to 84%. The FEM highlighted that for a same instrumental strategy, different biomechanical performances were observed according to fracture severity. When bone continuity is altered, both ED and cement may be needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Le Gallo Lucas & V. P. C. Lima Lucas & Persohn Sylvain & Nérot Agathe & Rousseau Marc-Antoine & Simon Laurie & Skalli Wafa, 2022. "Biomechanical comparative evaluation of percutaneous fixations with vertebral expansion for vertebral compression fractures: an experimental and finite element study," Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(5), pages 487-498, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:gcmbxx:v:25:y:2022:i:5:p:487-498
    DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2021.1959919
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10255842.2021.1959919
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10255842.2021.1959919?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:gcmbxx:v:25:y:2022:i:5:p:487-498. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/gcmb .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.