Abstract
PurposeThere have been several reports on the pullout strength of cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws, but only one study has reviewed the stability of functional spine units using the CBT method. The purpose of this study was to compare vertebral stability after CBT fixation with that after pedicle screw (PS) fixation.MethodsIn this study, 20 lumbar spine (L5–6) specimens were assigned to two groups: the CBT model group that underwent CBT screw fixation (n = 10) and the PS model group that underwent pedicle screw fixation (n = 10). Using a six-axis material testing machine, bend and rotation tests were conducted on each model. The angular displacement from the time of no load to the time of maximum torque was defined as range of motion (ROM), and then, the mean ROM in the bend and rotation tests and the mean rate of relative change of ROM in both the bend and rotation tests were compared between the CBT and PS groups.ResultsThere were no significant differences between the CBT and PS groups with regard to the mean ROMs and the mean rate of relative change of ROMs in both the bend and rotation tests.ConclusionIntervertebral stability after CBT fixation was similar to that after PS fixation.
Highlights
Spinal fusion using cortical bone trajectory (CBT) was devised by Santoni et al [1] in 2009
There were no significant differences between the CBT and pedicle screw (PS) groups with regard to the mean range of motion (ROM) and the mean rate of relative change of ROMs in both the bend and rotation tests
Several studies have reported that the pullout strength and insertion torque of CBT screws are higher than those of PSs [5, 6], only one study has evaluated the functional spine unit (FSU) and compared intervertebral stability between the two methods (Perez-Orribo et al [7]), and this study only evaluated intervertebral stability after the CBT method in cases with no damage to the
Summary
Spinal fusion using cortical bone trajectory (CBT) was devised by Santoni et al [1] in 2009. The CBT method of spinal fusion has many advantages compared with pedicle screw (PS) fixation, including a low risk of nerve damage; low invasiveness, as the external side of the intervertebral joint need not be exposed [2]; and high stability among patients with osteoporosis or obesity having spinal diseases [3, 4]. Several studies have reported that the pullout strength and insertion torque of CBT screws are higher than those of PSs [5, 6], only one study has evaluated the functional spine unit (FSU) and compared intervertebral stability between the two methods (Perez-Orribo et al [7]), and this study only evaluated intervertebral stability after the CBT method in cases with no damage to the
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
