<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="static/style.xsl"?><OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd"><responseDate>2026-05-05T10:27:41Z</responseDate><request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:uvadoc.uva.es:10324/44991" metadataPrefix="etdms">https://uvadoc.uva.es/oai/request</request><GetRecord><record><header><identifier>oai:uvadoc.uva.es:10324/44991</identifier><datestamp>2021-06-24T07:16:08Z</datestamp><setSpec>com_10324_44585</setSpec><setSpec>com_10324_954</setSpec><setSpec>com_10324_894</setSpec><setSpec>col_10324_44586</setSpec></header><metadata><thesis xmlns="http://www.ndltd.org/standards/metadata/etdms/1.0/" xmlns:doc="http://www.lyncode.com/xoai" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.ndltd.org/standards/metadata/etdms/1.0/ http://www.ndltd.org/standards/metadata/etdms/1.0/etdms.xsd">
<title>Percutaneous dorsal instrumentation of vertebral burst fractures: Value of additional percutaneous intravertebral reposition-cadaver study</title>
<creator>Krüger, Antonio</creator>
<creator>Schmuck, Maya</creator>
<creator>Noriega González, David César</creator>
<creator>Ruchholtz, Steffen</creator>
<creator>Baroud, Gamal</creator>
<creator>Oberkircher, Ludwig</creator>
<description>Producción Científica</description>
<description>Purpose. The treatment of vertebral burst fractures is still controversial. The aim of the study is to evaluate the purpose of&#xd;
additional percutaneous intravertebral reduction when combined with dorsal instrumentation. Methods. In this biomechanical&#xd;
cadaver study twenty-eight spine segments (T11-L3) were used (male donors, mean age 64.9 ± 6.5 years). Burst fractures of L1&#xd;
were generated using a standardised protocol. After fracture all spines were allocated to four similar groups and randomised&#xd;
according to surgical techniques (posterior instrumentation; posterior instrumentation + intravertebral reduction device + cement&#xd;
augmentation; posterior instrumentation + intravertebral reduction device without cement; and intravertebral reduction device +&#xd;
cement augmentation). After treatment, 100000 cycles (100–600 N, 3 Hz) were applied using a servohydraulic loading frame. Results.&#xd;
Overall anatomical restoration was better in all groups where the intravertebral reduction device was used (𝑝 &lt; 0.05). In particular,&#xd;
it was possible to restore central endplates (𝑝 > 0.05). All techniques decreased narrowing of the spinal canal. After loading,&#xd;
clearance could be maintained in all groups fitted with the intravertebral reduction device. Narrowing increased in the group treated&#xd;
with dorsal instrumentation. Conclusions. For height and anatomical restoration, the combination of an intravertebral reduction&#xd;
device with dorsal instrumentation showed significantly better results than sole dorsal instrumentation.</description>
<date>2021-01-14</date>
<date>2021-01-14</date>
<date>2015</date>
<type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</type>
<identifier>BioMed Research International, 2015, vol. 2015. 10 p.</identifier>
<identifier>2314-6141</identifier>
<identifier>http://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/44991</identifier>
<identifier>10.1155/2015/434873</identifier>
<language>eng</language>
<relation>https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2015/434873/</relation>
<rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</rights>
<rights>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/</rights>
<rights>© 2015 Hindawi</rights>
<rights>Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported</rights>
<publisher>Hindawi</publisher>
</thesis></metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>