The strength of a posterior element claw at one versus two spinal levels

In the Cotrel-Dubousset and Texas Scottish Rite Hospital spinal implants systems, the upper hook on the convex rod is usually clawed to prevent posterior pull out. A transverse process hook and an upwardly directed pedicle hook are usually inserted on the same lamina level. However, clawing two leve...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:	Journal of spinal disorders 1990-09, Vol.3 (3), p.259-261
Hauptverfasser:	Roach, J W, Ashman, R B, Allard, R N
Format:	Artikel
Sprache:	eng
Schlagworte:	Animals Cattle Equipment Design Internal Fixators Spinal Fusion - instrumentation Stress, Mechanical Thoracic Vertebrae - surgery
Online-Zugang:	Volltext
Tags:	Tag hinzufügen Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!

container_end_page	261
container_issue	3
container_start_page	259
container_title	Journal of spinal disorders
container_volume	3
creator	Roach, J W Ashman, R B Allard, R N
description	In the Cotrel-Dubousset and Texas Scottish Rite Hospital spinal implants systems, the upper hook on the convex rod is usually clawed to prevent posterior pull out. A transverse process hook and an upwardly directed pedicle hook are usually inserted on the same lamina level. However, clawing two levels instead of one is a simpler surgical procedure. We biomechanically compared the posterior pull-out strength of a one-level versus two-level construct. The average load of failure of the double-level construct was significantly greater (p less than 0.05) as compared with the single level. Thus, the two-level construct is not only easier to insert, it is also stronger.
doi_str_mv	10.1097/00002517-199009000-00011
format	Article
fullrecord	<record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_80399126</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>80399126</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c320t-7c17d3793a130e1f0e7ded2bafe62933c6b4a67a4dec2e2da99cc1bfedfdcbc73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kE1PwzAMhnMAjTH4CUg5cSvko22aI5qAIU3iMs5RmrisKG1Kkm7i31O2McuWL89rSw9CmJIHSqR4JFOxgoqMSknI1CSbhtILNCeVLDLCq-IKXcf4NXE0L_gMzRjlec6rOVpttoBjCtB_pi32DdZ48DFBaH3A4KCDPmHj9B7rhH0PeAchjhGnvcdxaHvtsIMduHiDLhvtItye9gJ9vDxvlqts_f76tnxaZ4YzkjJhqLBcSK4pJ0AbAsKCZbVuoGSSc1PWuS6Fzi0YBsxqKY2hdQO2saY2gi_Q_fHuEPz3CDGpro0GnNM9-DGqinApKSsnsDqCJvgYAzRqCG2nw4-iRP2JU__i1FmcOoibonenH2PdgT0HT9b4LzPAbEo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>80399126</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The strength of a posterior element claw at one versus two spinal levels</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Roach, J W ; Ashman, R B ; Allard, R N</creator><creatorcontrib>Roach, J W ; Ashman, R B ; Allard, R N</creatorcontrib><description>In the Cotrel-Dubousset and Texas Scottish Rite Hospital spinal implants systems, the upper hook on the convex rod is usually clawed to prevent posterior pull out. A transverse process hook and an upwardly directed pedicle hook are usually inserted on the same lamina level. However, clawing two levels instead of one is a simpler surgical procedure. We biomechanically compared the posterior pull-out strength of a one-level versus two-level construct. The average load of failure of the double-level construct was significantly greater (p less than 0.05) as compared with the single level. Thus, the two-level construct is not only easier to insert, it is also stronger.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0895-0385</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/00002517-199009000-00011</identifier><identifier>PMID: 2134438</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Animals ; Cattle ; Equipment Design ; Internal Fixators ; Spinal Fusion - instrumentation ; Stress, Mechanical ; Thoracic Vertebrae - surgery</subject><ispartof>Journal of spinal disorders, 1990-09, Vol.3 (3), p.259-261</ispartof><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c320t-7c17d3793a130e1f0e7ded2bafe62933c6b4a67a4dec2e2da99cc1bfedfdcbc73</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27907,27908</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2134438$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Roach, J W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ashman, R B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allard, R N</creatorcontrib><title>The strength of a posterior element claw at one versus two spinal levels</title><title>Journal of spinal disorders</title><addtitle>J Spinal Disord</addtitle><description>In the Cotrel-Dubousset and Texas Scottish Rite Hospital spinal implants systems, the upper hook on the convex rod is usually clawed to prevent posterior pull out. A transverse process hook and an upwardly directed pedicle hook are usually inserted on the same lamina level. However, clawing two levels instead of one is a simpler surgical procedure. We biomechanically compared the posterior pull-out strength of a one-level versus two-level construct. The average load of failure of the double-level construct was significantly greater (p less than 0.05) as compared with the single level. Thus, the two-level construct is not only easier to insert, it is also stronger.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Internal Fixators</subject><subject>Spinal Fusion - instrumentation</subject><subject>Stress, Mechanical</subject><subject>Thoracic Vertebrae - surgery</subject><issn>0895-0385</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1990</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kE1PwzAMhnMAjTH4CUg5cSvko22aI5qAIU3iMs5RmrisKG1Kkm7i31O2McuWL89rSw9CmJIHSqR4JFOxgoqMSknI1CSbhtILNCeVLDLCq-IKXcf4NXE0L_gMzRjlec6rOVpttoBjCtB_pi32DdZ48DFBaH3A4KCDPmHj9B7rhH0PeAchjhGnvcdxaHvtsIMduHiDLhvtItye9gJ9vDxvlqts_f76tnxaZ4YzkjJhqLBcSK4pJ0AbAsKCZbVuoGSSc1PWuS6Fzi0YBsxqKY2hdQO2saY2gi_Q_fHuEPz3CDGpro0GnNM9-DGqinApKSsnsDqCJvgYAzRqCG2nw4-iRP2JU__i1FmcOoibonenH2PdgT0HT9b4LzPAbEo</recordid><startdate>199009</startdate><enddate>199009</enddate><creator>Roach, J W</creator><creator>Ashman, R B</creator><creator>Allard, R N</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199009</creationdate><title>The strength of a posterior element claw at one versus two spinal levels</title><author>Roach, J W ; Ashman, R B ; Allard, R N</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c320t-7c17d3793a130e1f0e7ded2bafe62933c6b4a67a4dec2e2da99cc1bfedfdcbc73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1990</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Internal Fixators</topic><topic>Spinal Fusion - instrumentation</topic><topic>Stress, Mechanical</topic><topic>Thoracic Vertebrae - surgery</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Roach, J W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ashman, R B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allard, R N</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of spinal disorders</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Roach, J W</au><au>Ashman, R B</au><au>Allard, R N</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The strength of a posterior element claw at one versus two spinal levels</atitle><jtitle>Journal of spinal disorders</jtitle><addtitle>J Spinal Disord</addtitle><date>1990-09</date><risdate>1990</risdate><volume>3</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>259</spage><epage>261</epage><pages>259-261</pages><issn>0895-0385</issn><abstract>In the Cotrel-Dubousset and Texas Scottish Rite Hospital spinal implants systems, the upper hook on the convex rod is usually clawed to prevent posterior pull out. A transverse process hook and an upwardly directed pedicle hook are usually inserted on the same lamina level. However, clawing two levels instead of one is a simpler surgical procedure. We biomechanically compared the posterior pull-out strength of a one-level versus two-level construct. The average load of failure of the double-level construct was significantly greater (p less than 0.05) as compared with the single level. Thus, the two-level construct is not only easier to insert, it is also stronger.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>2134438</pmid><doi>10.1097/00002517-199009000-00011</doi><tpages>3</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext	fulltext
identifier	ISSN: 0895-0385
ispartof	Journal of spinal disorders, 1990-09, Vol.3 (3), p.259-261
issn	0895-0385
language	eng
recordid	cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_80399126
source	MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects	Animals Cattle Equipment Design Internal Fixators Spinal Fusion - instrumentation Stress, Mechanical Thoracic Vertebrae - surgery
title	The strength of a posterior element claw at one versus two spinal levels
url	https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T11%3A13%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20strength%20of%20a%20posterior%20element%20claw%20at%20one%20versus%20two%20spinal%20levels&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20spinal%20disorders&rft.au=Roach,%20J%20W&rft.date=1990-09&rft.volume=3&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=259&rft.epage=261&rft.pages=259-261&rft.issn=0895-0385&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/00002517-199009000-00011&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E80399126%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=80399126&rft_id=info:pmid/2134438&rfr_iscdi=true