Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 15, 2026
Minimally Invasive Treatment for Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture Using Sagittal Alignment Screws and A Trauma Reduction Device
Published on: November 8, 2024
Biomechanical effects of pedicle screw adjustments on the thoracolumbar burst fractures
Jian Shang1, Xiao-Dong Ling, Yuan-Chao Liu
1The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Haerbin, Heilongjiang 150001, China.
Background:
Posterior pedicle screw device is widely used in treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures. As the clinical operation is not based upon quantitative data of adjustments, the results are not optimal. At present, no study has assessed the associations between the device adjustments and the restoration of stiffness. We investigated the biomechanical effects that adjustments of a pedicle screw device had on the burst fracture, and explored an optimal adjustment.
Methods:
Burst fractures were produced at L1 vertebra in 24 fresh calf spines (T12-L3). The specimens were divided into four groups at random. Pedicle screw devices were attached to T13 and L2. Four device adjustments, consisting of distraction and extension, were applied. Adjustment 1 was pure 6° extension, adjustment 2 was pure 5 mm distraction, adjustment 3 was 6° extension followed by 5 mm distraction, and adjustment 4 was 5 mm distraction followed by 6° extension. The effect of each adjustment on the stiffness restoration, anatomical reduction, and neural decompression for the burst fractures was analyzed and evaluated.
Results:
Pure extension (Group 1) produced the closest segment height and the least restoration of the canal to the intact. Pure distraction (Group 2) restored stiffness most, but with only 60% stiffness of the intact value, and lost the segmental angle most to the intact. The combination of extension-distraction (Group 3 and Group 4) produced the maximum reduction of the anatomy and restoration of the canal in the burst fracture, and the least stiffness restoration. The sequence of extension and distraction did not affect stiffness restoration, anatomical reduction, and neural decompression.
Conclusions:
The device adjustments affected stiffness restoration, anatomical reduction, and neural decompression. The combined extension-distraction adjustment may be the most suitable considering the anatomical reduction and neural decompression, but the stiffness decreased the most; it should be considered to reconstruct L1 vertebra.
