FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2334777737> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2334777737 endingPage "298" @default.
• W2334777737 startingPage "295" @default.
• W2334777737 abstract "Study Design This study evaluates and compares the stiffness of two cervical spine fixation techniques. Objectives This biomechanical study was carried out to compare the interspinous and Dewar cervical spine fixation techniques. Summary of Background Data Interspinous wiring is a commonly used method of fixation in the cervical spine. The Dewar technique is less commonly known and practiced, and clinical experience has suggested that it may be a more stable technique. Methods Cervical spine specimens stabilized with the interspinous and “Dewar” techniques were biomechanically tested in flexion and in torsion. Stiffness and energy absorption under moderate loads were compared. The Dewar technique uses contoured double corticocancellous iliac grafts as internal graft/splints fixed to the spine with threaded pins and wire. The interspinous technique is a single interspinous wire loop. Eleven fresh human cervical spines were harvested from cadavers. The spines were destabilized at C4-C5 by sectioning all tissue except the anterior longitudinal ligament. Each fixation technique was applied alternatively and tested on each spine. Results In torsion testing (n = 5), the Dewar fusion was 61% stiffer than the interspinous technique (P < 0.02). Dewar: 11.3 N/mm (s.d. 4.9 N/mm) and interspinous: 8.4 N/mm (SD 3.3 N/mm). In flexion testing (n = 6), the Dewar technique was 35% stiffer than the interspinous technique (P < 0.10). Dewar: 655.4 Nmm/degree (SD 293 Nmm/degree) and interspinous: 406.8 Nmm/degree (SD 113.0 Nmm/degree). Energy absorption with the interspinous technique was greater in flexion (P < 0.10) and in torsion (P < 0.005), indicating more deformation with the interspinous technique. There was no statistically significant difference between the means of specimens tested first and those tested second independently of the fixation technique. Conclusions These tests indicate that the Dewar cervical spine fixation is stiffer than the single interspinous wire is both flexion and particularly torsion. This project is the only biomechanical study of the Dewar technique that we are aware of, and the results support the clinical findings regarding the effectiveness of this technique." @default.
• W2334777737 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2334777737 creator A5013169770 @default.
• W2334777737 creator A5020865691 @default.
• W2334777737 creator A5032245170 @default.
• W2334777737 creator A5063949911 @default.
• W2334777737 date "1996-02-01" @default.
• W2334777737 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2334777737 title "Biomechanical Comparison of the Dewar and Interspinous Cervical Spine Fixation Techniques" @default.
• W2334777737 cites W2003815699 @default.
• W2334777737 cites W2020812772 @default.
• W2334777737 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199602010-00007" @default.
• W2334777737 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8742204" @default.
• W2334777737 hasPublicationYear "1996" @default.
• W2334777737 type Work @default.
• W2334777737 sameAs 2334777737 @default.
• W2334777737 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W2334777737 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2334777737 hasAuthorship W2334777737A5013169770 @default.
• W2334777737 hasAuthorship W2334777737A5020865691 @default.
• W2334777737 hasAuthorship W2334777737A5032245170 @default.
• W2334777737 hasAuthorship W2334777737A5063949911 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConcept C105702510 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConcept C136229726 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConcept C146249460 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConcept C170700871 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConcept C29694066 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConcept C2985379065 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConcept C91762617 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConceptScore W2334777737C105702510 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConceptScore W2334777737C136229726 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConceptScore W2334777737C141071460 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConceptScore W2334777737C146249460 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConceptScore W2334777737C170700871 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConceptScore W2334777737C2908647359 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConceptScore W2334777737C29694066 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConceptScore W2334777737C2985379065 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConceptScore W2334777737C71924100 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConceptScore W2334777737C91762617 @default.
• W2334777737 hasConceptScore W2334777737C99454951 @default.
• W2334777737 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2334777737 hasLocation W23347777371 @default.
• W2334777737 hasLocation W23347777372 @default.
• W2334777737 hasOpenAccess W2334777737 @default.
• W2334777737 hasPrimaryLocation W23347777371 @default.
• W2334777737 hasRelatedWork W2043268165 @default.
• W2334777737 hasRelatedWork W2087965305 @default.
• W2334777737 hasRelatedWork W2127428092 @default.
• W2334777737 hasRelatedWork W2334777737 @default.
• W2334777737 hasRelatedWork W2356698405 @default.
• W2334777737 hasRelatedWork W2398420074 @default.
• W2334777737 hasRelatedWork W2765248861 @default.
• W2334777737 hasRelatedWork W2804066437 @default.
• W2334777737 hasRelatedWork W4225608748 @default.
• W2334777737 hasRelatedWork W2186553004 @default.
• W2334777737 hasVolume "21" @default.
• W2334777737 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2334777737 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2334777737 magId "2334777737" @default.
• W2334777737 workType "article" @default.