Skip navigation

DSpace

機構典藏 DSpace 系統致力於保存各式數位資料(如:文字、圖片、PDF)並使其易於取用。

點此認識 DSpace
DSpace logo
English
中文
  • 瀏覽論文
    • 校院系所
    • 出版年
    • 作者
    • 標題
    • 關鍵字
    • 指導教授
  • 搜尋 TDR
  • 授權 Q&A
    • 我的頁面
    • 接受 E-mail 通知
    • 編輯個人資料
  1. NTU Theses and Dissertations Repository
  2. 工學院
  3. 醫學工程學研究所
請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件: http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/68021
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位值語言
dc.contributor.advisor林峰輝
dc.contributor.authorFon-Yih Tsuangen
dc.contributor.author曾峰毅zh_TW
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-17T02:11:22Z-
dc.date.available2018-02-26
dc.date.copyright2018-02-26
dc.date.issued2018
dc.date.submitted2018-01-17
dc.identifier.citation1. Corniola MV, Jagersberg M, Stienen MN, Gautschi OP. Complete cage migration/subsidence into the adjacent vertebral body after posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Clin Neurosci. 2015;22(3):597-8.
2. Hikata T, Kamata M, Furukawa M. Risk factors for adjacent segment disease after posterior lumbar interbody fusion and efficacy of simultaneous decompression surgery for symptomatic adjacent segment disease. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27(2):70-5.
3. Lequin MB, Verbaan D, Bouma GJ. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with stand-alone Trabecular Metal cages for repeatedly recurrent lumbar disc herniation and back pain. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(6):617-22.
4. Okuda S, Oda T, Yamasaki R, Maeno T, Iwasaki M. Repeated adjacent-segment degeneration after posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(5):538-41.
5. Kwon DW, Kim KH, Park JY, Chin DK, Kim KS, Cho YE, et al. Clinical outcomes and considerations of the lumbar interbody fusion technique for lumbar disk disease in adolescents. Childs Nerv Syst. 2013;29(8):1339-44.
6. Lawrence BD, Wang J, Arnold PM, Hermsmeyer J, Norvell DC, Brodke DS. Predicting the risk of adjacent segment pathology after lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(22 Suppl):S123-32.
7. Lee JC, Kim Y, Soh JW, Shin BJ. Risk factors of adjacent segment disease requiring surgery after lumbar spinal fusion: comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterolateral fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(5):E339-45.
8. Nakashima H, Kawakami N, Tsuji T, Ohara T, Suzuki Y, Saito T, et al. Adjacent Segment Disease After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Based on Cases With a Minimum of 10 Years of Follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(14):E831-41.
9. Lu K, Liliang PC, Wang HK, Liang CL, Chen JS, Chen TB, et al. Reduction in adjacent-segment degeneration after multilevel posterior lumbar interbody fusion with proximal DIAM implantation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;23(2):190-6.
10. Radcliff KE, Kepler CK, Jakoi A, Sidhu GS, Rihn J, Vaccaro AR, et al. Adjacent segment disease in the lumbar spine following different treatment interventions. Spine J. 2013;13(10):1339-49.
11. Kumar MN, Baklanov A, Chopin D. Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J. 2001;10(4):314-9.
12. Etebar S, Cahill DW. Risk factors for adjacent-segment failure following lumbar fixation with rigid instrumentation for degenerative instability. J Neurosurg. 1999;90(2 Suppl):163-9.
13. Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE. Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(17):1938-44.
14. Lee CK. Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988;13(3):375-7.
15. Schlegel JD, Smith JA, Schleusener RL. Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbosacral fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(8):970-81.
16. Bastian L, Lange U, Knop C, Tusch G, Blauth M. Evaluation of the mobility of adjacent segments after posterior thoracolumbar fixation: a biomechanical study. Eur Spine J. 2001;10(4):295-300.
17. Faizan A, Goel VK, Biyani A, Garfin SR, Bono CM. Adjacent level effects of bi level disc replacement, bi level fusion and disc replacement plus fusion in cervical spine--a finite element based study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2012;27(3):226-33.
18. Ma J, Jia H, Ma X, Xu W, Yu J, Feng R, et al. Evaluation of the stress distribution change at the adjacent facet joints after lumbar fusion surgery: a biomechanical study. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2014;228(7):665-73.
19. Ozgur BM, Berta S, Khiatani V, Taylor WR. Automated intraoperative EMG testing during percutaneous pedicle screw placement. Spine J. 2006;6(6):708-13.
20. Aota Y, Kumano K, Hirabayashi S. Postfusion instability at the adjacent segments after rigid pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spinal disorders. J Spinal Disord. 1995;8(6):464-73.
21. Cheh G, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Buchowski JM, Daubs MD, Kim Y, et al. Adjacent segment disease followinglumbar/thoracolumbar fusion with pedicle screw instrumentation: a minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(20):2253-7.
22. Kaito T, Hosono N, Mukai Y, Makino T, Fuji T, Yonenobu K. Induction of early degeneration of the adjacent segment after posterior lumbar interbody fusion by excessive distraction of lumbar disc space. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;12(6):671-9.
23. Okuda S, Iwasaki M, Miyauchi A, Aono H, Morita M, Yamamoto T. Risk factors for adjacent segment degeneration after PLIF. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(14):1535-40.
24. Diwan AD, Parvartaneni H, Cammisa F. Failed degenerative lumbar spine surgery. Orthop Clin North Am. 2003;34(2):309-24.
25. Waguespack A, Schofferman J, Slosar P, Reynolds J. Etiology of long-term failures of lumbar spine surgery. Pain Med. 2002;3(1):18-22.
26. Hallab N. Metal sensitivity in patients with orthopedic implants. J Clin Rheumatol. 2001;7(4):215-8.
27. Hallab N, Merritt K, Jacobs JJ. Metal sensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A(3):428-36.
28. Shang X, Wang L, Kou D, Jia X, Yang X, Zhang M, et al. Metal hypersensitivity in patient with posterior lumbar spine fusion: a case report and its literature review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:314.
29. Zotti MG, Brumby-Rendell OP, McDonald B, Fisher T, Tsimiklis C, Yoon WW, et al. The outcome of pedicle screw instrumentation removal for ongoing low back pain following posterolateral lumbar fusion. J Spine Surg. 2015;1(1):50-6.
30. Jeon CH, Lee HD, Lee YS, Seo JH, Chung NS. Is It Beneficial to Remove the Pedicle Screw Instrument After Successful Posterior Fusion of Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(11):E627-33.
31. Galbusera F, Bellini CM, Anasetti F, Ciavarro C, Lovi A, Brayda-Bruno M. Rigid and flexible spinal stabilization devices: a biomechanical comparison. Med Eng Phys. 2011;33(4):490-6.
32. Hudson WR, Gee JE, Billys JB, Castellvi AE. Hybrid dynamic stabilization with posterior spinal fusion in the lumbar spine. SAS J. 2011;5(2):36-43.
33. Kim CH, Chung CK, Jahng TA. Comparisons of outcomes after single or multilevel dynamic stabilization: effects on adjacent segment. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24(1):60-7.
34. Bourgeois AC, Faulkner AR, Bradley YC, Pasciak AS, Barlow PB, Gash JR, et al. Improved Accuracy of Minimally Invasive Transpedicular Screw Placement in the Lumbar Spine With 3-Dimensional Stereotactic Image Guidance: A Comparative Meta-Analysis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28(9):324-9.
35. Niesche M, Juratli TA, Sitoci KH, Neidel J, Daubner D, Schackert G, et al. Percutaneous pedicle screw and rod fixation with TLIF in a series of 14 patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2014;124:25-31.
36. Yu E, Khan SN. Does less invasive spine surgery result in increased radiation exposure? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(6):1738-48.
37. Rampersaud YR, Foley KT, Shen AC, Williams S, Solomito M. Radiation exposure to the spine surgeon during fluoroscopically assisted pedicle screw insertion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(20):2637-45.
38. Gupta G, Singh R, Kotasthane DS, Kotasthane VD. Myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms: recent classification system based on World Health Organization Classification of Tumors - International Agency for Research on Cancer for Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues. J Blood Med. 2010;1:171-82.
39. Srinivasan D, Than KD, Wang AC, La Marca F, Wang PI, Schermerhorn TC, et al. Radiation safety and spine surgery: systematic review of exposure limits and methods to minimize radiation exposure. World Neurosurg. 2014;82(6):1337-43.
40. Funao H, Ishii K, Momoshima S, Iwanami A, Hosogane N, Watanabe K, et al. Surgeons' exposure to radiation in single- and multi-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; a prospective study. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e95233.
41. Castro WH, Halm H, Jerosch J, Malms J, Steinbeck J, Blasius S. Accuracy of pedicle screw placement in lumbar vertebrae. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(11):1320-4.
42. Kim CW, Lee YP, Taylor W, Oygar A, Kim WK. Use of navigation-assisted fluoroscopy to decrease radiation exposure during minimally invasive spine surgery. Spine J. 2008;8(4):584-90.
43. Nowitzke A, Wood M, Cooney K. Improving accuracy and reducing errors in spinal surgery--a new technique for thoracolumbar-level localization using computer-assisted image guidance. Spine J. 2008;8(4):597-604.
44. von Jako R, Finn MA, Yonemura KS, Araghi A, Khoo LT, Carrino JA, et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous transpedicular screw fixation: increased accuracy and reduced radiation exposure by means of a novel electromagnetic navigation system. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2011;153(3):589-96.
45. Gianaris TJ, Helbig GM, Horn EM. Percutaneous pedicle screw placement with computer-navigated mapping in place of Kirschner wires: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(5):608-13.
46. Torres J, James AR, Alimi M, Tsiouris AJ, Geannette C, Hartl R. Screw placement accuracy for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery: a study on 3-d neuronavigation-guided surgery. Global Spine J. 2012;2(3):143-52.
47. Mason A, Paulsen R, Babuska JM, Rajpal S, Burneikiene S, Nelson EL, et al. The accuracy of pedicle screw placement using intraoperative image guidance systems. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(2):196-203.
48. Kim TT, Drazin D, Shweikeh F, Pashman R, Johnson JP. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of minimally invasive percutaneous pedicle screw placement with intraoperative CT (O-arm) image guidance navigation. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(3):E1.
49. Kraus M, Weiskopf J, Dreyhaupt J, Krischak G, Gebhard F. Computer-aided surgery does not increase the accuracy of dorsal pedicle screw placement in the thoracic and lumbar spine: a retrospective analysis of 2,003 pedicle screws in a level I trauma center. Global Spine J. 2015;5(2):93-101.
50. Bezer M, Yildirim Y, Erol B, Guven O. Absorbable self-reinforced polylactide (SR-PLLA) rods vs rigid rods (K-wire) in spinal fusion: an experimental study in rabbits. Eur Spine J. 2005;14(3):227-33.
51. Johnsson R, Axelsson P, Stromqvist B. Posterolateral lumbar fusion using facet joint fixation with biodegradable rods: a pilot study. Eur Spine J. 1997;6(2):144-8.
52. Savage K, Sardar ZM, Pohjonen T, Sidhu GS, Eachus BD, Vaccaro A. Mechanical properties of bioresorbable self-reinforced posterior cervical rods. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27(2):E66-71.
53. Chien CY, Kuo YJ, Lin SC, Chuang WH, Luh YP. Kinematic and mechanical comparisons of lumbar hybrid fixation using Dynesys and Cosmic systems. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(15):E878-84.
54. Chuang WH, Kuo YJ, Lin SC, Wang CW, Chen SH, Chen YJ, et al. Comparison among load-, ROM-, and displacement-controlled methods used in the lumbosacral nonlinear finite-element analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(5):E276-85.
55. Chuang WH, Lin SC, Chen SH, Wang CW, Tsai WC, Chen YJ, et al. Biomechanical effects of disc degeneration and hybrid fixation on the transition and adjacent lumbar segments: trade-off between junctional problem, motion preservation, and load protection. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(24):E1488-97.
56. Panjabi MM, Oxland T, Takata K, Goel V, Duranceau J, Krag M. Articular facets of the human spine. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993;18(10):1298-310.
57. Zander T, Rohlmann A, Calisse J, Bergmann G. Estimation of muscle forces in the lumbar spine during upper-body inclination. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2001;16 Suppl 1:S73-80.
58. Ruberte LM, Natarajan RN, Andersson GB. Influence of single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease on the behavior of the adjacent segments--a finite element model study. J Biomech. 2009;42(3):341-8.
59. Lu YM, Hutton WC, Gharpuray VM. Can variations in intervertebral disc height affect the mechanical function of the disc? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(19):2208-16; discussion 17.
60. Rohlmann A, Zander T, Rao M, Bergmann G. Applying a follower load delivers realistic results for simulating standing. J Biomech. 2009;42(10):1520-6.
61. Ahn YH, Chen WM, Lee KY, Park KW, Lee SJ. Comparison of the load-sharing characteristics between pedicle-based dynamic and rigid rod devices. Biomed Mater. 2008;3(4):044101.
62. Liu CL, Zhong ZC, Hsu HW, Shih SL, Wang ST, Hung C, et al. Effect of the cord pretension of the Dynesys dynamic stabilisation system on the biomechanics of the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(11):1850-8.
63. Shirazi-Adl A, Sadouk S, Parnianpour M, Pop D, El-Rich M. Muscle force evaluation and the role of posture in human lumbar spine under compression. Eur Spine J. 2002;11(6):519-26.
64. Oh KW, Lee JH, Lee JH, Lee DY, Shim HJ. The Correlation Between Cage Subsidence, Bone Mineral Density, and Clinical Results in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(6):E683-E9.
65. Highsmith JM, Tumialan LM, Rodts GE, Jr. Flexible rods and the case for dynamic stabilization. Neurosurg Focus. 2007;22(1):E11.
66. Chen CS, Chen WJ, Cheng CK, Jao SH, Chueh SC, Wang CC. Failure analysis of broken pedicle screws on spinal instrumentation. Med Eng Phys. 2005;27(6):487-96.
67. Shih SL, Chen CS, Lin HM, Huang LY, Liu CL, Huang CH, et al. Effect of spacer diameter of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system on the biomechanics of the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012;25(5):E140-9.
68. Shih SL, Liu CL, Huang LY, Huang CH, Chen CS. Effects of cord pretension and stiffness of the Dynesys system spacer on the biomechanics of spinal decompression- a finite element study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:191.
69. Dreischarf M, Zander T, Shirazi-Adl A, Puttlitz CM, Adam CJ, Chen CS, et al. Comparison of eight published static finite element models of the intact lumbar spine: predictive power of models improves when combined together. J Biomech. 2014;47(8):1757-66.
70. Panjabi MM. Hybrid multidirectional test method to evaluate spinal adjacent-level effects. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2007;22(3):257-65.
71. Kok D, Firkins PJ, Wapstra FH, Veldhuizen AG. A new lumbar posterior fixation system, the memory metal spinal system: an in-vitro mechanical evaluation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:269.
72. Hsieh YY, Chen CH, Tsuang FY, Wu LC, Lin SC, Chiang CJ. Removal of fixation construct could mitigate adjacent segment stress after lumbosacral fusion: A finite element analysis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2017;43:115-20.
73. Chang UK, Kim DH, Lee MC, Willenberg R, Kim SH, Lim J. Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7(1):33-9.
74. Li H, Pei BQ, Yang JC, Hai Y, Li DY, Wu SQ. Load rate of facet joints at the adjacent segment increased after fusion. Chin Med J (Engl). 2015;128(8):1042-6.
75. Gercek E, Arlet V, Delisle J, Marchesi D. Subsidence of stand-alone cervical cages in anterior interbody fusion: warning. Eur Spine J. 2003;12(5):513-6.
76. van Dijk M, Smit TH, Sugihara S, Burger EH, Wuisman PI. The effect of cage stiffness on the rate of lumbar interbody fusion: an in vivo model using poly(l-lactic Acid) and titanium cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(7):682-8.
77. Robertson PA, Stewart NR. The radiologic anatomy of the lumbar and lumbosacral pedicles. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(6):709-15.
78. Rajasekaran S, Vidyadhara S, Ramesh P, Shetty AP. Randomized clinical study to compare the accuracy of navigated and non-navigated thoracic pedicle screws in deformity correction surgeries. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(2):E56-64.
79. Mirza SK, Wiggins GC, Kuntz Ct, York JE, Bellabarba C, Knonodi MA, et al. Accuracy of thoracic vertebral body screw placement using standard fluoroscopy, fluoroscopic image guidance, and computed tomographic image guidance: a cadaver study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(4):402-13.
80. Bindal RK, Glaze S, Ognoskie M, Tunner V, Malone R, Ghosh S. Surgeon and patient radiation exposure in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;9(6):570-3.
81. Berry JL, Moran JM, Berg WS, Steffee AD. A morphometric study of human lumbar and selected thoracic vertebrae. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1987;12(4):362-7.
82. Olsewski JM, Simmons EH, Kallen FC, Mendel FC, Severin CM, Berens DL. Morphometry of the lumbar spine: anatomical perspectives related to transpedicular fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72(4):541-9.
83. Krag MH, Weaver DL, Beynnon BD, Haugh LD. Morphometry of the thoracic and lumbar spine related to transpedicular screw placement for surgical spinal fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988;13(1):27-32.
84. Bernard TN, Jr., Seibert CE. Pedicle diameter determined by computed tomography. Its relevance to pedicle screw fixation in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992;17(6 Suppl):S160-3.
85. Robertson PA, Novotny JE, Grobler LJ, Agbai JU. Reliability of axial landmarks for pedicle screw placement in the lower lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998;23(1):60-6.
86. Li B, Jiang B, Fu Z, Zhang D, Wang T. Accurate determination of isthmus of lumbar pedicle: a morphometric study using reformatted computed tomographic images. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(21):2438-44.
87. Wolf A, Shoham M, Michael S, Moshe R. Morphometric study of the human lumbar spine for operation-workspace specifications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(22):2472-7.
88. Mitra SR, Datir SP, Jadhav SO. Morphometric study of the lumbar pedicle in the Indian population as related to pedicular screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(5):453-9.
89. Tan SH, Teo EC, Chua HC. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy of cervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae of Chinese Singaporeans. Eur Spine J. 2004;13(2):137-46.
90. Lien SB, Liou NH, Wu SS. Analysis of anatomic morphometry of the pedicles and the safe zone for through-pedicle procedures in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(8):1215-22.
91. Acharya S, Dorje T, Srivastava A. Lower dorsal and lumbar pedicle morphometry in Indian population: a study of four hundred fifty vertebrae. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(10):E378-84.
92. Zindrick MR, Wiltse LL, Doornik A, Widell EH, Knight GW, Patwardhan AG, et al. Analysis of the morphometric characteristics of the thoracic and lumbar pedicles. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1987;12(2):160-6.
93. Ebraheim NA, Rollins JR, Jr., Xu R, Yeasting RA. Projection of the lumbar pedicle and its morphometric analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(11):1296-300.
94. Schizas C, Michel J, Kosmopoulos V, Theumann N. Computer tomography assessment of pedicle screw insertion in percutaneous posterior transpedicular stabilization. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(5):613-7.
95. Heintel TM, Berglehner A, Meffert R. Accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screws for thoracic and lumbar spine fractures: a prospective trial. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(3):495-502.
96. Raley DA, Mobbs RJ. Retrospective computed tomography scan analysis of percutaneously inserted pedicle screws for posterior transpedicular stabilization of the thoracic and lumbar spine: accuracy and complication rates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(12):1092-100.
97. Gelalis ID, Paschos NK, Pakos EE, Politis AN, Arnaoutoglou CM, Karageorgos AC, et al. Accuracy of pedicle screw placement: a systematic review of prospective in vivo studies comparing free hand, fluoroscopy guidance and navigation techniques. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(2):247-55.
98. West JL, 3rd, Ogilvie JW, Bradford DS. Complications of the variable screw plate pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991;16(5):576-9.
99. Lonstein JE, Denis F, Perra JH, Pinto MR, Smith MD, Winter RB. Complications associated with pedicle screws. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81(11):1519-28.
dc.identifier.urihttp://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/68021-
dc.description.abstract椎間融合及後固定手術是治療腰椎退化性疾病常見的治療方式。經椎弓根鏍釘固定可增加脊椎的穩定性及提高骨融合的機會,但椎體經後固定融合後剛性提高造成相鄰節段的脊椎不正常的受力,被認為是加速相鄰節段脊椎退化的主因。但是,其機轉尚未明瞭。目前生物可降解的植入物逐漸受到骨科及外科醫師的重視。 生物可降解的植入物在經過設計及規畫的時間後降解,有機會可以減少傳統植入物的剛性,進而減少相鄰節段的壓力。所以這種植入物提供了足夠的穩定性,但是剛性會相對地降低。
我們使用一個有效力而且受過文獻驗證的腰薦椎有限元素分析模型,分析三種不同的第四/五腰椎固定模式:1) 中度退化的椎間盤,2)經椎弓根鏍釘的後固定及使用椎間融合器,3)骨融合後移除椎弓根鏍釘、只剩椎間融合器。我們檢視椎體間活動的角度、椎間盤所受的壓力、及小關節所承受的負擔。我們也模擬了四種腰椎的運動模式:彎曲、伸展、側彎及扭轉。
此外,我們另外又建立了六個有限元素分析的模型來模擬脊椎在有或沒有固定物下的情形。我們使用傳統的鈦合金的連結桿或是可生物降解的連結桿來當做固定物。運動模式為受到縱軸向的壓力或是單純的運動模試。我們把相鄰節段的可運動的範圍、椎間盤受到的壓力、還有小關節所受到的壓力記錄下來。根據國際標準規範ASTM F1717-11a,我們使用三點彎曲測試及動態彎曲測式來檢驗使用可生物降解連結桿在用做脊椎固定物的表現。
臨床上,通常頭側比尾側的相鄰節段有更嚴重的退化情形。在穩定的骨融合及固定之後,相鄰節段的可運動的範圍、椎間盤受到的壓力、還有小關節所受到的壓力分別增加 57.6%、47.3%及59.6%。但是當我們移除固定物後,這些增加的幅度分別降低為30.1%、22.7%及27.0%。這種情形我們歸因於骨融合及固定之間不同的生物力學特性。
此外進一步的有限元素分析模擬告訴我們,在腰椎後固定融合手術中使用生物可降解連結桿在骨融合的節段及相鄰節段有類似的可活動範圍。當連結桿隨著時間被降解後,這個現象造成相鄰節段小關節及椎間盤受力的減少,而且會造成前面骨移植物受力的增加。力學測試的結果顯示,生物可降解連結桿起始的材料疲勞強度為145 N,但是浸潤在模擬體內環境的液體內,材料疲勞強度六個月後降低到115 N及十二個月後降低到55 N。傳統鈦合金及生物可降解的連結桿,都可以承受5,000,000次145 N縱軸向受力的動態受力測式。
脊椎手術的後固定物,會使得原本已經骨融合的節段有更高的剛性。目前的研究顯示如果骨融合後,移除掉後固定物可以減少相鄰節段所受的壓力。經由微創手術的技術,在我們移除後固定物的二次手術也可以減少脊椎旁肌肉的破壞。此外,我們的研究顯示,生物可降解的連結桿可能可以提供一個比傳統骨融合手術更佳的預後。這種多分子聚合物的可生物降解連結桿不只在一開始提供了足夠的穩定度,而且在骨融合節段,隨著時間連結桿降解造成剛性逐漸降少,也逐漸減少了相鄰節段的受力,進一步避免需要二次手術來移除連結桿。
此外,微創脊椎手術越來越廣泛地被使用,而且提供病人許多的好處如:減少術中的出血、更少的傷口疼痛、比較小的感染風險、而且也讓病人縮短了住院天數及讓病人提早能回到工作崗位上。但是,外科醫師在執行微創脊椎手術的時候,在術中使用X光定位時,特別是在植入骨釘的時候,會接觸到更多的游離輻射。更甚於此,基於設備問題,很多的醫院並不會備有脊椎導航設備。我們展示了一個只術中只需要照前後面向X光的植入骨釘的方法,並且同時有一個在2010至2015年回溯性670個病例4072支經椎弓根釘及2014至2016年前曕性88個病例413支經椎弓根釘植入的研究。特別是在前曕性的研究中,使用術後追蹤的電腦斷層來評估經椎弓根釘位置的準確性。顯示這種植入骨釘方法的準確性並不會較有導航系統為差。
zh_TW
dc.description.abstractInterbody fusion with posterior instrumentation is a common method for treating lumbar degenerative disc diseases. The transpedicular fixator aims to increase stability and enhance the fusion rate. However, the high rigidity of the fusion construct may produce abnormal stresses at the adjacent segment and lead to adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). However, how the fused disc and bridged vertebrae respectively affect ASD progression is not yet clear. As such, biodegradable implants are becoming more popular for use in orthopaedic surgery. These implants offer sufficient stability for fusion but at a reduced stiffness. Tailored to degrade over a specific timeframe, biodegradable implants could potentially mitigate the drawbacks of conventional stiff constructs and reduce the loading on adjacent segments.
Using a validated lumbar sacral finite-element model, three variations at the L4-5 segment were analyzed: 1) moderate disc degeneration, 2) instrumented with a stand-alone cage and pedicle screw fixators, and 3) with the cage only after fusion. The intersegmental angles, disc stresses, and facet loads were examined Four motion tests, flexion, extension, bending, and twisting, were also simulated.
Furthermore, six finite element models were developed in this study to simulate a spine with and without fixators. The spinal fixators used both titanium rods and biodegradable rods. The models were subjected to axial loading and pure moments. The range of motion (ROM), disc stresses, and contact forces of facet joints at adjacent segments were recorded. A 3-point bending test was performed on the biodegradable rods and a dynamic bending test was performed on the spinal fixators according to ASTM F1717-11a.
The adjacent-segment disease was more severe at the cephalic segment than the caudal segment. After solid fusion and fixation, the increase in intersegmental angles, disc stresses and facet loads of the adjacent segments were about 57.6%, 47.3%, and 59.6%, respectively. However, these changes were reduced to 30.1%, 22.7%, and 27.0% after removal of the fixators. This was attributed to the differences between the biomechanical characteristics of the fusion and fixation mechanisms.
The finite element simulation showed that lumbar spinal fusion using biodegradable implants had a similar ROM at the fusion level as at adjacent levels. As the rods degraded over time, this produced a decrease in the contact force at adjacent facet joints, less stress in the adjacent disc and greater loading on the anterior bone graft region. The mechanical tests showed the initial average fatigue strength of the biodegradable rods was 145 N, but this decreased to 115N and 55N after 6 months and 12 months of soaking in solution. Also, both the spinal fixator with biodegradable rods and with titanium rods was strong enough to withstand 5,000,000 dynamic compression cycles under a 145 N axial load.
Fixation superimposes a stiffer constraint on the mobility of the bridged segment than fusion. The current study suggested that the removal of spinal fixators after complete fusion could decrease the stress at adjacent segments. Through a minimally invasive procedure, we could reduce secondary damage to the paraspinal structures while removing the fixators, which is of upmost concern to surgeons. In addition, the results of this study demonstrated that biodegradable rods may present more favourable clinical outcomes for lumbar fusion. These polymer rods could not only provide sufficient initial stability, but the loss in rigidity of the fixation construct over time gradually transfers loading to adjacent segments, avoiding the second surgery, which to remove the fixators.
In addition, minimally invasive spine surgery has become increasingly popular in clinical practice, and it offers patients the potential benefits of reduced blood loss, wound pain, and infection risk and also diminishes the loss of working time and length of hospital stay. However, surgeons require more intraoperative fluoroscopy and ionizing radiation exposure during minimally invasive spine surgery for localization, especially for guidance in instrumentation placement. In addition, computer navigation is not accessible in some facility-limited institutions. We demonstrated a method for percutaneous screws placement using only the anterior-posterior trajectory of intraoperative fluoroscopy in patients who received posterior fixation with percutaneous pedicle screws for thoraco-lumbar degenerative disease or trauma.
We retrospectively reviewed the charts of consecutive 670 patients who received 4072 pedicle screws between December 2010 and August 2015. Another case series study was conducted prospectively in three additional hospitals, and 88 consecutive patients with 413 pedicle screws were enrolled from February 2014 to July 2016. The fluoroscopy shot number and radiation dose were recorded. In the prospective study, 78 patients with 371 screws received computed tomography at 3 months post-operatively to evaluate the fusion condition and screw positions.
en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T02:11:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
ntu-107-F99548011-1.pdf: 24896328 bytes, checksum: eed3629b6ba71299959d0576a6313067 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2018
en
dc.description.tableofcontentsChapter 1. Introduction……………………...…………………………..…….…..……..1
1.1 Instrumented Lumbar Fusion Surgery and Adjacent Segment Disease………….1
1.2 Implant Removal after Lumbar Spine Surgery…………………..….…………...3
1.3 Dynamic Stabilization…………………………………………..………….…...4
1.4 Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery…………………..……………........……….4
1.5 Biodegradable Implants………………………………..…………....…….…….7
1.6 Dissertation Goals…………………….…………………..………....………….8
Chapter 2. Removal of Fixation Construct could Mitigate Adjacent Segment Stress after Lumbosacral fusion…………………….………………………...………......………...10
2.1 Methods…………………….…………….....………...………….....………...10
2.1.1 Lumbosacral models.………………….….......………...……………...…10
2.1.2 Intervertebral fusion and transpedicular fixation…...…………......….….14
2.1.3 Finite-element analyses…...…………....………….………….....…....….15
2.2 Results…………………….……….......……...…………....………..………..17
2.3 Discussion…………………………………………..…………………………18
Chapter 3. Suitability of Biodegradable Rods for use in Posterior Lumbar Fusion........23
3.1 Materials and Methods…………………………………………...………...…23
3.1.1 FEA models of the lumbar spine and implants……………………...…...23
3.1.2 Mechanical testing………………….…………….……………..……….27
3.2 Results………………….…………….…………………………...…..………28
3.2.1 FE models of the lumbar spine and implants………………...…………..28
3.2.1.1 ROM of each level…………………..……………………….………28
3.2.1.2 Contact force at adjacent facet joint……………………......….……..32
3.2.1.3 Peak stress at adjacent disc………………….……………...….……..34
3.2.1.4 Comparison of loading on bone graft and cages……………………..38
3.2.2 Mechanical testing for safety evaluation…..……………………………..38
3.3 Discussion……………………………..………….…………………...………40
Chapter 4. Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement under Single Dimensional Fluoroscopy with a Designed Pedicle Finder…………………………………..………44
4.1 Methods…………………..………..…………………………………………44
4.1.1 Instrument design…………………...….………………………...………44
4.1.2 Technique note…………………...….………………………...…………45
4.1.3 Study design…………………...….………………………………..…….49
4.1.4 Pedicle screw position evaluation…………………...….……..…………50
4.2 Results…………………...….………….………………………….…………51
4.2.1 Retrospective series…………………...….…………………..…………..51
4.2.2 Prospective series…………………...….…………...........................……52
4.3 Discussion……………………………………………………………………..53
Chapter 5. Conclusions, and Future works……………………..…...……………..…..58
5.1 Conclusions……………………………………….…………...………..……58
5.2 Future works…………………………………………………..……………..59
5.2.1 From pre-clinical study to clinical study……………..………………….59
5.2.2 Material for biodegradable rods………………………..………………..59
5.2.3 Robotic automated spine instrumentation………………………………..60
References…………………………………………………………..…………………61
Annex……………………...………………………………………..…………………72
dc.language.isoen
dc.subject游離輻射zh_TW
dc.subject可生物降解的連結桿zh_TW
dc.subject相鄰節段退化zh_TW
dc.subject微創脊椎手術zh_TW
dc.subject腰椎融合手術zh_TW
dc.subject經皮椎弓根釘zh_TW
dc.subjectpercutaneous pedicle screwen
dc.subjectminimally invasive spine surgeryen
dc.subjectadjacent segment diseaseen
dc.subjectbiodegradable rodsen
dc.subjectionizing radiationen
dc.subjectlumbar fusion surgeryen
dc.title可生物降解的連結桿在腰椎後融合手術的適用性評估zh_TW
dc.titleAssessment of the Suitability of Biodegradable Rods for use in Posterior Lumbar Fusionen
dc.typeThesis
dc.date.schoolyear106-1
dc.description.degree博士
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee陳志華,杜永光,蔡瑞章,孫瑞昇
dc.subject.keyword腰椎融合手術,微創脊椎手術,相鄰節段退化,可生物降解的連結桿,游離輻射,經皮椎弓根釘,zh_TW
dc.subject.keywordlumbar fusion surgery,minimally invasive spine surgery,adjacent segment disease,biodegradable rods,ionizing radiation,percutaneous pedicle screw,en
dc.relation.page94
dc.identifier.doi10.6342/NTU201800059
dc.rights.note有償授權
dc.date.accepted2018-01-17
dc.contributor.author-college工學院zh_TW
dc.contributor.author-dept醫學工程學研究所zh_TW
顯示於系所單位:醫學工程學研究所

文件中的檔案:
檔案 大小格式 
ntu-107-1.pdf
  未授權公開取用
24.31 MBAdobe PDF
顯示文件簡單紀錄


系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。

社群連結
聯絡資訊
10617臺北市大安區羅斯福路四段1號
No.1 Sec.4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. 106
Tel: (02)33662353
Email: ntuetds@ntu.edu.tw
意見箱
相關連結
館藏目錄
國內圖書館整合查詢 MetaCat
臺大學術典藏 NTU Scholars
臺大圖書館數位典藏館
本站聲明
© NTU Library All Rights Reserved