Advertisement
ProCite
RefWorks
Reference Manager
BibTeX
Zotero
EndNote
-
1. Bergknut N, Smolders LA, Grinwis GC, et al. Intervertebral disc degeneration in the dog. Part 1: anatomy and physiology of the intervertebral disc and characteristics of intervertebral disc degeneration. Vet J 2013; 195: 282–291.
-
2. Brisson BA. Intervertebral disc disease in dogs. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2010; 40: 829–858.
-
3. Chambers JN, Oliver JE Jr, Kornegay JN, et al. Ventral decompression for caudal cervical disk herniation in large- and giant-breed dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1982; 180: 410–414.
-
4. Fauber AE, Wade JA, Lipka AE, et al. Effect of width of disk fenestration and a ventral slot on biomechanics of the canine C5-C6 vertebral motion unit. Am J Vet Res 2006; 67: 1844–1848.
-
5. Fitch RB, Kerwin SC, Hosgood G. Caudal cervical intervertebral disk disease in the small dog: role of distraction and stabilization in ventral slot decompression. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2000; 36: 68–74.
-
6. Lemarie RJ, Kerwin SC, Partington BP, et al. Vertebral subluxation following ventral cervical decompression in the dog. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2000; 36: 348–358.
-
7. Macy NB, Les CM, Stover SM, et al. Effect of disk fenestration on sagittal kinematics of the canine C5-C6 intervertebral space. Vet Surg 1999; 28: 171–179.
-
8. Adamo PF, Kobayashi H, Markel M, et al. In vitro biomechanical comparison of cervical disk arthroplasty, ventral slot procedure, and smooth pins with polymethylmethacrylate fixation at treated and adjacent canine cervical motion units. Vet Surg 2007; 36: 729–741.
-
9. Koehler CL, Stover SM, LeCouteur RA, et al. Effect of a ventral slot procedure and of smooth or positive-profile threaded pins with polymethylmethacrylate fixation on intervertebral biomechanics at treated and adjacent canine cervical vertebral motion units. Am J Vet Res 2005; 66: 678–687.
-
10. McCartney W. Comparison of recovery times and complication rates between a modified slanted slot and the standard ventral slot for the treatment of cervical disc disease in 20 dogs. J Small Anim Pract 2007; 48: 498–501.
-
11. Slocum B, Devine-Slocum T. Slanted slot for cervical decompression. In: Bojrab MJ, Ellison GW, Slocum B, eds. Current techniques in small animal surgery. 4th ed. Philadelphia: William & Wilkins, 1998;826–828.
-
12. Cherrone KL, Dewey CW, Coates JR, et al. A retrospective comparison of cervical intervertebral disk disease in nonchondrodystrophic large dogs versus small dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2004; 40: 316–320.
-
13. Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L. Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J 1998; 7: 148–154.
-
14. Adams MA, Roughley PJ. What is intervertebral disc degeneration, and what causes it? Spine 2006; 31: 2151–2161.
-
15. Goel VK, Nishiyama K, Weinstein JN, et al. Mechanical properties of lumbar spinal motion segments as affected by partial disc removal. Spine 1986; 11: 1008–1012.
-
16. Meakin JR, Hukins DW. Effect of removing the nucleus pulposus on the deformation of the annulus fibrosus during compression of the intervertebral disc. J Biomech 2000; 33: 575–580.
-
17. Shirazi-Adl A, Ahmed AM, Shrivastava C. Mechanical response of a lumbar motion segment in axial torque alone and combined with compression. Spine 1986; 11: 914–927.
-
18. Krismer M, Haid C, Rabl W, et al. The contribution of anulus fibers to torque resistance. Spine 1996; 21: 2551–2557.
-
19. van Deursen DL, Snijders CJ, Kingma I, et al. In vitro torsion-induced stress distribution changes in porcine intervertebral discs. Spine 2001; 26: 2582–2586.
-
20. Gedet P, Thistlethwaite PA, Ferguson SJ. Minimizing errors during in vitro testing of multisegmental spine specimens: considerations for component selection and kinematic measurement. J Biomech 2007; 40: 1881–1885.
-
21. Corse MR, Renberg WC, Friis EA. In vitro evaluation of biomechanical effects of multiple hemilaminectomies on the canine lumbar vertebral column. Am J Vet Res 2003; 64: 1139–1145.
-
22. Hettlich BF, Allen MJ, Pascetta D, et al. Biomechanical comparison between bicortical pin and monocortical screw/polymethylmethacrylate constructs in the cadaveric canine cervical vertebral column. Vet Surg 2013; 42: 693–700.
-
23. Hicks DG, Pitts MJ, Bagley RS, et al. In vitro biomechanical evaluations of screw-bar-polymethylmethacrylate and pin-polymethylmethacrylate internal fixation implants used to stabilize the vertebral motion unit of the fourth and fifth cervical vertebrae in vertebral column specimens from dogs. Am J Vet Res 2009; 70: 719–726.
-
24. Meij BP, Suwankong N, Van der Veen AJ, et al. Biomechanical flexion-extension forces in normal canine lumbosacral cadaver specimens before and after dorsal laminectomy-discectomy and pedicle screw-rod fixation. Vet Surg 2007; 36: 742–751.
-
25. Hofstetter M, Gédet P, Doherr M, et al. Biomechanical analysis of the three-dimensional motion pattern of the canine cervical spine segment C4-C5. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 49–58.
Advertisement
Effects of conventional and slanted ventral slot procedures on the biomechanical behavior of the C5-C6 vertebral motion unit in dogs
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare the effects of conventional and slanted ventral slot procedures on the biomechanical behavior of the C5-C6 vertebral motion unit (VMU) in dogs.
SAMPLE 14 vertebral columns (C4 through C7) from canine cadavers.
PROCEDURES Specimens were assigned to a conventional or slanted ventral slot group (n = 7/group). For each specimen, the C5-C6 VMU was tested in ventral and dorsal bending and positive and negative axial torsion before and after surgery. Range of motion (ROM), stiffness, and energy absorption were compared between the 2 groups.
RESULTS Both procedures significantly increased the ROM and stiffness and significantly decreased the energy absorption of the C5-C6 VMU in ventral and dorsal bending. Both procedures also increased the ROM in positive and negative axial torsion. In negative torsion, total stiffness and stiffness over the maximum ROM tested decreased less for the slanted slot procedure than for the conventional slot procedure. There were no significant differences between procedures for any of the other biomechanical outcomes examined.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results suggested that the biomechanical response of the C5-C6 VMU to the conventional and slanted ventral slot procedures was not significantly different, especially when considering postsurgical instability induced by both procedures. This was most likely due to disruption of the nucleus pulposus and dorsal annulus fibrosus of the disk with both procedures. On the basis of these findings, neither procedure appeared biomechanically superior. Comparative clinical studies are warranted to further evaluate the 2 procedures.
Contributor Notes
Dr. Yang's present address is Department of Pediatric Surgery, Shriners Hospital for Children, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3G IA4, Canada.
Drs. Lambrecht and Packer's present address is Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.
Powered by PubFactory