Skip to main content
PMC home page
The Iowa Orthopaedic Journal logoLink to The Iowa Orthopaedic Journal
. 1997;17:20–31.

Comparing Mersilene* tape and stainless steel wire as sublaminar spinal fixation in the Chagma baboon (Papio ursinus).

L J Grobler 1, R W Gaines 1, P G Kempff 1
PMCID: PMC2378116  PMID: 9234971

Abstract

The development of segmental instrumentation has been a major advancement in the treatment of spinal problems, but the use of sublaminar stainless steel wire (SSW) has not been without untoward effects. This study reports a comparison of Mersilene* tape (MT) and stainless steel wire (SSW) used for sublaminar fixation in the Chagma baboon (Papio Ursinus). A similar comparative study has not been reported, although the local effects of sublaminar SSW in the spinal canal have previously been described. The adult Chagma baboon was selected as the experimental animal due to its partial upright posture and spinal anatomy, similar to that of the human. Six levels of the thoracolumbar spine were instrumented with custom designed Harrington hooks and regular one-quarter inch threaded rods used as a distraction system. The four intervening laminae were fixed to the rods using doubled-over, eighteen gauge sublaminar SSW in six cases and five millimeter MT in six cases. Computed axial tomography used to measure the AP diameter of the bony spinal canal revealed the AP space occupied by the SSW and MT to be 32 percent and 14.8 percent respectively. In the MT group, the overlying dura mater was found to be totally intact and revealed no signs of abnormal tissue response. A well-formed connective tissue membrane consisting of dense connective tissue surrounded the MT and was found to consist of more mature fibers than that found in the SSW group. The dura-implant interface was examined histologically and a distinct membrane was identified between the dura and the superficial aspect of the MT's, as well as intervening between the two MT's. Following removal of the MT, in contrast to the SSW, it was apparent that the underlying dura was not injured, most probably due to the soft consistency of the Mersilene* tape and the well-formed overlying membrane. On clinical grounds the fixation in both groups was adequate but the MT group formed a well-circumscribed membrane that made removal of the MT easier and potentially safer. The AP space occupied by the spinal implant was also found to be less with MT as opposed to SSW.

Full text

PDF
23

Images in this article

22Figure 2
on p.22
23Figure 3A-3B
on p.23
23Figure 3C
on p.23
25Figure 4
on p.25
26Figure 5A
on p.26
26Figure 5B-5C
on p.26
29Figure 6A
on p.29
29Figure 6B
on p.29
30Figure 6C
on p.30
30Figure 6D
on p.30

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Allen B. L., Jr, Ferguson R. L. Neurologic injuries with the Galveston technique of L-rod instrumentation for scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1986 Jan-Feb;11(1):14–17. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198601000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Dove J. Segmental wiring for spinal deformity. A morbidity report. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1989 Feb;14(2):229–231. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198902000-00016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Flatley T. J., Derderian H. Closed loop instrumentation of the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985 Jun;(196):273–278. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gaines R. W., Jr, Abernathie D. L. Mersilene tapes as a substitute for wire in segmental spinal instrumentation for children. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1986 Nov;11(9):907–913. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198611000-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Johnston C. E., 2nd, Happel L. T., Jr, Norris R., Burke S. W., King A. G., Roberts J. M. Delayed paraplegia complicating sublaminar segmental spinal instrumentation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986 Apr;68(4):556–563. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Luque E. R. The anatomic basis and development of segmental spinal instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1982 May-Jun;7(3):256–259. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198205000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Nixon J. E. Does sublaminar wiring produce spinal stenosis? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989 Jan;71(1):92–93. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.71B1.2915015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. O'Brien J. P., Stephens M. M., Prickett C. F., Wilcox A., Evans J. H. Nylon sublaminar straps in segmental instrumentation for spinal disorders. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986 Feb;(203):168–171. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Onimus M., Laurain J. M. Le traitement des déformations rachidiennes par le cadre de Hartshill. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1987;73(5):349–360. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Pampliega T., Beguiristain J. L., Artieda J. Neurologic complications after sublaminar wiring. An experimental study in lambs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1992 Apr;17(4):441–445. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199204000-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Schrader W. C., Bethem D., Scerbin V. The chronic local effects of sublaminar wires. An animal model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1988 May;13(5):499–502. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198805000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Taddonio R. F. Segmental spinal instrumentation in the management of neuromuscular spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1982 May-Jun;7(3):305–311. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198205000-00017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Thometz J. G., Emans J. B. A comparison between spinous process and sublaminar wiring combined with Harrington distraction instrumentation in the management of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop. 1988 Mar-Apr;8(2):129–132. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Wilber R. G., Thompson G. H., Shaffer J. W., Brown R. H., Nash C. L., Jr Postoperative neurological deficits in segmental spinal instrumentation. A study using spinal cord monitoring. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984 Oct;66(8):1178–1187. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Iowa Orthopaedic Journal are provided here courtesy of The University of Iowa

RESOURCES