Biomechanical Study Of C1-C2 Posterior Arthrodesis Technique...

• Spine
• Spine Open

• Spine
• Spine Open

February 1993 - Volume 18 - Issue 2

• Next Abstract

Export All Images to PowerPoint File Add to My Favorites

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your Name: Colleague's Email: Separate multiple e-mails with a (;). Message: Thought you might appreciate this item(s) I saw in Spine.

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Some error has occurred while processing your request. Please try after some time.

End Note

Procite

Reference Manager

Save my selection

Article: PDF Only

Hajek, Phillip D. MD; Lipka, John MS; Hartline, Phillip; Saha, Subrata PhD; Albright, James A. MD

Author Information

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Biomechanics Laboratory, Louisiana State University Medical Center, Shreveport, Louisiana. Accepted for publication November 21, 1991.

Supported by the Center of Excellence for Arthritis and Rheumatology at Louisiana State University Medical Center, Shreveport, Louisiana.

Spine 18(2):p 173-177, February 1993.

• Buy

Abstract

Fifteen cervical spines from cadavers were used to compare the rotational and translational stability of the Brooks fusion, a fusion construct using Halifax interlaminar clamps, and the Gallie fusion. The Brooks and Halifax clamp constructs exhibited significantly greater rotational and translational stiffness than the Gallie construct (P< 0.001). The Halifax clamp construct exhibited greater rotational stiffness and equal translational stiffness when compared with the Brooks construct (P<0.05). The Brooks and Halifax fixation constructs provided superior fixation but presented technical challenges. The Gallie construct is less technically demanding but provides less stable fixation.

© Lippincott-Raven Publishers.

Full Text Access for Subscribers:

Individual Subscribers

Log in for access

Institutional Users

Access through Ovid®

Not a Subscriber?

Buy Subscribe Request Permissions

You can read the full text of this article if you:

Select an option Log In Buy Article Subscribe Content & Permissions Access through Ovid Log In Access through Ovid

Source

Biomechanical Study of C1-C2 Posterior Arthrodesis Techniques Spine18(2):173-177, February 1993.

• Full-Size
• Email
• + Favorites
• Export
• View in Gallery

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your Name: Colleague's Email: Separate multiple e-mails with a (;). Message: Thought you might appreciate this item(s) I saw in Spine.

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Some error has occurred while processing your request. Please try after some time.

• Guideline for C1 Lateral Mass and C2 Pedicle Screw Choices in Children Younger...

• Anatomical Feasibility of Pediatric Cervical Pedicle Screw Insertion by...

• Atlantoaxial and Craniocervical Arthrodesis in Children: A Tomographic Study...

• Modern Cervical Spine Instrumentation in Children

• Biomechanical Comparison of C1–C2 Posterior Arthrodesis Techniques