scholarly journals In VitroComparison of Dynesys, PEEK, and Titanium Constructs in the Lumbar Spine

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew S. Yeager ◽  
Daniel J. Cook ◽  
Boyle C. Cheng
Keyword(s):  
Tracking System ◽  
Dynamic Stabilization ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Adjacent Level ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Intact Condition ◽  
Study Support ◽  
Posterior Dynamic Stabilization ◽  
Adjacent Level Effects

Introduction. Pedicle based posterior dynamic stabilization systems aim to stabilize the pathologic spine while also allowing sufficient motion to mitigate adjacent level effects. Two flexible constructs that have been proposed to act in such a manner, the Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization System and PEEK rod, have yet to be directly comparedin vitroto a rigid Titanium rod.Methods. Human lumbar specimens were tested in flexion extension, lateral bending, and axial torsion to evaluate the following conditions at L4-L5: Intact, Dynesys, PEEK rod, Titanium rod, and Destabilized. Intervertebral range of motion, interpedicular travel, and interpedicular displacement metrics were evaluated from 3rd-cycle data using an optoelectric tracking system.Results. Statistically significant decreases in ROM compared to Intact and Destabilized conditions were detected for the instrumented conditions during flexion extension and lateral bending. AT ROM was significantly less than Destabilized but not the Intact condition. Similar trends were found for interpedicular displacement in all modes of loading; however, interpedicular travel trends were less consistent. More importantly, no metrics under any mode of loading revealed significant differences between Dynesys, PEEK, and Titanium.Conclusion. The results of this study support previous findings that Dynesys and PEEK constructs behave similarly to a Titanium rodin vitro.

Biomechanics of Dynamic Rod Segments for Achieving Transitional Stiffness With Lumbosacral Fusion

Neurosurgery ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 517-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno C.R. Lazaro ◽  
Phillip M. Reyes ◽  
Anna G.U.S. Newcomb ◽  
Ali S. Yaqoobi ◽  
Leonardo B.C. Brasiliense ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Rigid Fixation ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Hybrid Fixation ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Rod System ◽  
Transition Level ◽  
Intact Condition

Abstract BACKGROUND: Transitioning from rigid to flexible hardware at the distal rostral or caudal lumbar or lumbosacral level hypothetically maintains motion at the transition level and protects the transition level and intact adjacent levels from stresses caused by fusion. OBJECTIVE: To biomechanically compare transitional and rigid constructs with uninstrumented specimens in vitro. METHODS: Human cadaveric L2-S1 segments were tested (1) intact, (2) after L5-S1 rigid pedicle screw-rod fixation, (3) after L4-S1 rigid pedicle screw-rod fixation, and (4) after hybrid fixation rigidly spanning L5-S1 and dynamically spanning L4-L5. Pure moments (maximum 7.5 Nm) induced flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation while motion was recorded optoelectronically. Additionally, specimens were studied in flexion/extension with a 400-N compressive follower load. Strain gauges on laminae were used to extract facet loads. RESULTS: The range of motion at the transition segment (L4-L5) for the hybrid construct was significantly less than for the intact condition and significantly greater than for the rigid 2-level construct during lateral bending and axial rotation but not during flexion or extension. Sagittal axis of rotation at L4-L5 shifted significantly after rigid 2-level or hybrid fixation (P < .003) but shifted significantly farther posterior and rostral with rigid fixation (P < .02). Instrumentation altered L4-L5 facet load at more than the L3-L4 facet load. CONCLUSION: The effect of the dynamic rod segment on the kinematics of the transition level was less pronounced than that of a fully rigid construct in vitro with this particular rod system. This experimental model detected no biomechanical alterations at adjacent intact levels with hybrid or rigid systems.

scholarly journals Comprehensive biomechanical analysis of three reconstruction techniques following total sacrectomy: an in vitro human cadaveric model

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 570-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Macki ◽  
Rafael De la Garza-Ramos ◽  
Ashley A. Murgatroyd ◽  
Kenneth P. Mullinix ◽  
Xiaolei Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Axial Compression ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Iliac Screws ◽  
Intact Condition ◽  
Cadaveric Model

OBJECTIVEAggressive sacral tumors often require en bloc resection and lumbopelvic reconstruction. Instrumentation failure and pseudarthrosis remain a clinical concern to be addressed. The objective in this study was to compare the biomechanical stability of 3 distinct techniques for sacral reconstruction in vitro.METHODSIn a human cadaveric model study, 8 intact human lumbopelvic specimens (L2–pelvis) were tested for flexion-extension range of motion (ROM), lateral bending, and axial rotation with a custom-designed 6-df spine simulator as well as axial compression stiffness with the MTS 858 Bionix Test System. Biomechanical testing followed this sequence: 1) intact spine; 2) sacrectomy (no testing); 3) Model 1 (L3–5 transpedicular instrumentation plus spinal rods anchored to iliac screws); 4) Model 2 (addition of transiliac rod); and 5) Model 3 (removal of transiliac rod; addition of 2 spinal rods and 2 S-2 screws). Range of motion was measured at L4–5, L5–S1/cross-link, L5–right ilium, and L5–left ilium.RESULTSFlexion-extension ROM of the intact specimen at L4–5 (6.34° ± 2.57°) was significantly greater than in Model 1 (1.54° ± 0.94°), Model 2 (1.51° ± 1.01°), and Model 3 (0.72° ± 0.62°) (p < 0.001). Flexion-extension at both the L5–right ilium (2.95° ± 1.27°) and the L5–left ilium (2.87° ± 1.40°) for Model 3 was significantly less than the other 3 cohorts at the same level (p = 0.005 and p = 0.012, respectively). Compared with the intact condition, all 3 reconstruction groups statistically significantly decreased lateral bending ROM at all measured points. Axial rotation ROM at L4–5 for Model 1 (2.01° ± 1.39°), Model 2 (2.00° ± 1.52°), and Model 3 (1.15° ± 0.80°) was significantly lower than the intact condition (5.02° ± 2.90°) (p < 0.001). Moreover, axial rotation for the intact condition and Model 3 at L5–right ilium (2.64° ± 1.36° and 2.93° ± 1.68°, respectively) and L5–left ilium (2.58° ± 1.43° and 2.93° ± 1.71°, respectively) was significantly lower than for Model 1 and Model 2 at L5–right ilium (5.14° ± 2.48° and 4.95° ± 2.45°, respectively) (p = 0.036) and L5–left ilium (5.19° ± 2.34° and 4.99° ± 2.31°) (p = 0.022). Last, results of the axial compression testing at all measured points were not statistically different among reconstructions.CONCLUSIONSThe addition of a transverse bar in Model 2 offered no biomechanical advantage. Although the implementation of 4 iliac screws and 4 rods conferred a definitive kinematic advantage in Model 3, that model was associated with significantly restricted lumbopelvic ROM.

Zero-profile hybrid fusion construct versus 2-level plate fixation to treat adjacent-level disease in the cervical spine

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 753-760 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew T. Healy ◽  
Swetha J. Sundar ◽  
Raul J. Cardenas ◽  
Prasath Mageswaran ◽  
Edward C. Benzel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Adjacent Level ◽  
Test Protocol ◽  
Single Level ◽  
Test Conditions ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Intact Condition ◽  
Pure Moment

Object Single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is an established surgical treatment for cervical myelopathy. Within 10 years of undergoing ACDF, 19.2% of patients develop symptomatic adjacent-level degeneration. Performing ACDF adjacent to prior fusion requires exposure and removal of previously placed hardware, which may increase the risk of adverse outcomes. Zero-profile cervical implants combine an interbody spacer with an anterior plate into a single device that does not extend beyond the intervertebral disc space, potentially obviating the need to remove prior hardware. This study compared the biomechanical stability and adjacent-level range of motion (ROM) following placement of a zero-profile device (ZPD) adjacent to a single-level ACDF against a standard 2-level ACDF. Methods In this in vitro biomechanical cadaveric study, multidirectional flexibility testing was performed by a robotic spine system that simulates flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation by applying a continuous pure moment load. Testing conditions were as follows: 1) intact, 2) C5–6 ACDF, 3) C4–5 ZPD supraadjacent to simulated fusion at C5–6, and 4) 2-level ACDF (C4–6). The sequence of the latter 2 test conditions was randomized. An unconstrained pure moment of 1.5 Nm with a 40-N simulated head weight load was applied to the intact condition first in all 3 planes of motion and then using the hybrid test protocol, overall intact kinematics were replicated subsequently for each surgical test condition. Intersegmental rotations were measured optoelectronically. Mean segmental ROM for operated levels and adjacent levels was recorded and normalized to the intact condition and expressed as a percent change from intact. A repeated-measures ANOVA was used to analyze the ROM between test conditions with a 95% level of significance. Results No statistically significant differences in immediate construct stability were found between construct Patterns 3 and 4, in all planes of motion (p > 0.05). At the operated level, C4–5, the zero-profile construct showed greater decreases in axial rotation (–45% vs –36%) and lateral bending (–55% vs –38%), whereas the 2-level ACDF showed greater decreases in flexion-extension (–40% vs –34%). These differences were marginal and not statistically significant. Adjacent-level motion was nearly equivalent, with minor differences in flexion-extension. Conclusions When treating degeneration adjacent to a single-level ACDF, a zero-profile implant showed stabilizing potential at the operated level statistically similar to that of the standard revision with a 2-level plate. Revision for adjacent-level disease is common, and using a ZPD in this setting should be investigated clinically because it may be a faster, safer alternative.

Hybrid dynamic stabilization: a biomechanical assessment of adjacent and supraadjacent levels of the lumbar spine

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 232-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prasath Mageswaran ◽  
Fernando Techy ◽  
Robb W. Colbrunn ◽  
Tara F. Bonner ◽  
Robert F. McLain
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Industrial Robot ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Dynamic Stabilization ◽  
Follower Load ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Intact Specimen ◽  
Flexion Extension

Object The object of this study was to evaluate the effect of hybrid dynamic stabilization on adjacent levels of the lumbar spine. Methods Seven human spine specimens from T-12 to the sacrum were used. The following conditions were implemented: 1) intact spine; 2) fusion of L4–5 with bilateral pedicle screws and titanium rods; and 3) supplementation of the L4–5 fusion with pedicle screw dynamic stabilization constructs at L3–4, with the purpose of protecting the L3–4 level from excessive range of motion (ROM) and to create a smoother motion transition to the rest of the lumbar spine. An industrial robot was used to apply continuous pure moment (± 2 Nm) in flexion-extension with and without a follower load, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Intersegmental rotations of the fused, dynamically stabilized, and adjacent levels were measured and compared. Results In flexion-extension only, the rigid instrumentation at L4–5 caused a 78% decrease in the segment's ROM when compared with the intact specimen. To compensate, it caused an increase in motion at adjacent levels L1–2 (45.6%) and L2–3 (23.2%) only. The placement of the dynamic construct at L3–4 decreased the operated level's ROM by 80.4% (similar stability as the fusion at L4–5), when compared with the intact specimen, and caused a significant increase in motion at all tested adjacent levels. In flexion-extension with a follower load, instrumentation at L4–5 affected only a subadjacent level, L5–sacrum (52.0%), while causing a reduction in motion at the operated level (L4–5, −76.4%). The dynamic construct caused a significant increase in motion at the adjacent levels T12–L1 (44.9%), L1–2 (57.3%), and L5–sacrum (83.9%), while motion at the operated level (L3–4) was reduced by 76.7%. In lateral bending, instrumentation at L4–5 increased motion at only T12–L1 (22.8%). The dynamic construct at L3–4 caused an increase in motion at T12–L1 (69.9%), L1–2 (59.4%), L2–3 (44.7%), and L5–sacrum (43.7%). In axial rotation, only the placement of the dynamic construct at L3–4 caused a significant increase in motion of the adjacent levels L2–3 (25.1%) and L5–sacrum (31.4%). Conclusions The dynamic stabilization system displayed stability characteristics similar to a solid, all-metal construct. Its addition of the supraadjacent level (L3–4) to the fusion (L4–5) did protect the adjacent level from excessive motion. However, it essentially transformed a 1-level lumbar fusion into a 2-level lumbar fusion, with exponential transfer of motion to the fewer remaining discs.

The cervical end of an occipitocervical fusion: a biomechanical evaluation of 3 constructs

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 296-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Finn ◽  
Daniel R. Fassett ◽  
Todd D. Mccall ◽  
Randy Clark ◽  
Andrew T. Dailey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tracking System ◽  
Plate Fixation ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Lateral Mass ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Cross Link ◽  
3D Tracking ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Biomechanical Evaluation ◽  
Rotation Motion

Object Stabilization with rigid screw/rod fixation is the treatment of choice for craniocervical disorders requiring operative stabilization. The authors compare the relative immediate stiffness for occipital plate fixation in concordance with transarticular screw fixation (TASF), C-1 lateral mass and C-2 pars screw (C1L-C2P), and C-1 lateral mass and C-2 laminar screw (C1L-C2L) constructs, with and without a cross-link. Methods Ten intact human cadaveric spines (Oc–C4) were prepared and mounted in a 7-axis spine simulator. Each specimen was precycled and then tested in the intact state for flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Motion was tracked using the OptoTRAK 3D tracking system. The specimens were then destabilized and instrumented with an occipital plate and TASF. The spine was tested with and without the addition of a cross-link. The C1L-C2P and C1L-C2L constructs were similarly tested. Results All constructs demonstrated a significant increase in stiffness after instrumentation. The C1L-C2P construct was equivalent to the TASF in all moments. The C1L-C2L was significantly weaker than the C1L-C2P construct in all moments and significantly weaker than the TASF in lateral bending. The addition of a cross-link made no difference in the stiffness of any construct. Conclusions All constructs provide significant immediate stability in the destabilized occipitocervical junction. Although the C1L-C2P construct performed best overall, the TASF was similar, and either one can be recommended. Decreased stiffness of the C1L-C2L construct might affect the success of clinical fusion. This construct should be reserved for cases in which anatomy precludes the use of the other two.

Immediate Stiffness of the C5–C6 Segment after Discectomy with the Cloward Technique: An in Vitro Biomechanical Study on a Human Cadaveric Model

Neurosurgery ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 49 (6) ◽  
pp. 1399-1408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrzej Maciejczak ◽  
Michał Ciach ◽  
Maciej Radek ◽  
Andrzej Radek ◽  
Jan Awrejcewicz
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Spinal Instrumentation ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Postoperative Management ◽  
Biomechanical Study ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Cloward Procedure ◽  
Flexion Extension

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To determine whether the Cloward technique of cervical discectomy and fusion increases immediate postoperative stiffness of single cervical motion segment after application of interbody dowel bone graft. METHODS We measured and compared the stiffness of single-motion segments in cadaveric cervical spines before and immediately after interbody fusion with the Cloward technique. Changes in range of motion and stiffness of the C5–C6 segment were measured in a bending flexibility test (flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation) before and after a Cloward procedure in 11 fresh-frozen human cadaveric specimens from the 4th through the 7th vertebrae. RESULTS The Cloward procedure produced a statistically significant increase in stiffness of the operated segment in flexion and lateral bending when compared with the intact spine. The less stiff the segment before the operation, the greater the increase in its postoperative flexural stiffness (statistically significant). The Cloward procedure produced nonuniform changes in rotational and extensional stiffness that increased in some specimens and decreased in others. CONCLUSION Our data demonstrate that Cloward interbody fusion increases immediate postoperative stiffness of an operated segment only in flexion and lateral bending in cadaveric specimens in an in vitro environment. Thus, Cloward fusion seems a relatively ineffective method for increasing the stiffness of a construct. This may add to discussion on the use of spinal instrumentation and postoperative management of patients after cervical discectomy, which varies from bracing in hard collars through immobilization in soft collars to no external orthosis.

Biomechanical analysis of Goel technique for C1–2 fusion

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 639-646 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Park ◽  
Justin K. Scheer ◽  
T. Jesse Lim ◽  
Vedat Deviren ◽  
Christopher P. Ames
Keyword(s):  
Motion Tracking ◽  
Tracking System ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Rod System ◽  
Harms Technique

Object The Goel technique, in which C1–2 intraarticular spacers are used, may be performed to restore stability to a disrupted atlantoaxial complex in conjunction with the Harms technique of placing polyaxial screws and bilateral rods. However, it has yet to be determined biomechanically whether the addition of the C1–2 joint spacers increases the multiaxial rigidity of the fixation construct. The goal of this study was to quantify changes in multiaxial rigidity of the combined Goel-Harms technique with the addition of C1–2 intraarticular spacers. Methods Seven cadaveric cervical spines (occiput–C2) were submitted to nondestructive flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation tests in a material testing machine spine tester. The authors applied 1.5 Nm at a rate of 0.1 Nm/second and held it constant for 10 seconds. The specimens were loaded 3 times, and data were collected on the third cycle. Testing of the specimens was performed for the following groups: 1) intact (I); 2) with the addition of C-1 lateral mass/C-2 pedicle screws and rod system (I+SR); 3) with C1–2 joint capsule incision, decortication (2 mm on top and bottom of each joint [that is, the C-1 and C-2 surface) and addition of bilateral C1–2 intraarticular spacers at C1–2 junction to the screws and rods (I+SR+C); 4) after removal of the posterior rods and only the bilateral spacers in place (I+C); 5) after removal of spacers and further destabilization with simulated odontoidectomy for a completely destabilized case (D); 6) with addition of posterior rods to the destabilized case (D+SR); and 7) with addition of bilateral C1–2 intraarticular spacers at C1–2 junction to the destabilized case (D+SR+C). The motion of C-1 was measured by a 3D motion tracking system and the motion of C-2 was measured by the rotational sensor of the testing system. The range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ) across C-1 and C-2 were evaluated. Results For the intact spine test groups, the addition of screws/rods (I+SR) and screws/rods/cages (I+SR+C) significantly reduced ROM and NZ compared with the intact spine (I) for flexion-extension and axial rotation (p < 0.05) but not lateral bending (p > 0.05). The 2 groups were not significantly different from each other in any bending mode for ROM and NZ, but in the destabilized condition the addition of screws/rods (D+SR) and screws/rods/cages (D+SR+C) significantly reduced ROM and NZ compared with the destabilized spine (D) in all bending modes (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the addition of the C1–2 intraarticular spacers (D+SR+C) significantly reduced ROM (flexion-extension and axial rotation) and NZ (lateral bending) compared with the screws and rods alone (D+SR). Conclusions Study result indicated that both the Goel and Harms techniques alone and with the addition of the C1–2 intraarticular spacers to the Goel-Harms technique are advantageous for stabilizing the atlantoaxial segment. The Goel technique combined with placement of a screw/rod construct appears to result in additional construct rigidity beyond the screw/rod technique and appears to be more useful in very unstable cases.

scholarly journals Design of a Dynamic Stabilization Spine Implant

2009 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Bryndza ◽  
A. Weiser ◽  
M. Paliwal
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Mechanical Testing ◽  
Computational Analysis ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Dynamic Stabilization ◽  
Facet Joints ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Functional Spinal Unit ◽  
Flexion Extension

Arthritis, degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, and other ailments lead to the deterioration of the facet joints of the spine, causing pain and immobility in patients. Dynamic stabilization and arthroplasty of the facet joints have advantages over traditional fusion methods by eliminating pain while maintaining normal mobility and function. In the present work, a novel dynamic stabilization spine implant design was developed using computational analysis, and the final design was fabricated and mechanically tested. A model of a fused L4–L5 Functional Spinal Unit (FSU) was developed using Pro/Engineer (PTC Corporation, Needham, MA). The model was imported into commercial finite element analysis software Ansys (Ansys Inc., Canonsburg, PA), and meshed with the material properties of bone, intervertebral disc, and titanium alloy. Physiological loads (600N axial load, 10 N-m moment) were applied to the model construct following the protocol developed by others. The model was subjected to flexion/extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending, and was validated with the results reported by Kim et al. The validated FSU was used as a base to design and evaluate novel spine implant designs, using finite element anlysis. A comparison of the flexion-extension curve of six designs and an intact spine was carried out. Range of motion of the new designs showed up to 4 degrees in flexion and extension, compared to less than one degree flexion/extension in a fused spine. The design that reproduced normal range of motion best was optimized, fabricated and prepared for mechanical testing. The finalized dynamic stabilization design with spring insert was implanted into a L4-L5 FSU sawbone (Pacific Research Laboratories, Vashon, WA) using Stryker Xia pedicle screws. The construct was potted using PMMA, and was subjected to flexion/extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending loads using MTS mechanical testing machine. The stiffness of the design was assessed and compared with computational analysis results.

Tapered cages in anterior lumbar interbody fusion: biomechanics of segmental reactions

2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 330-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Moore ◽  
Narayan Yoganandan ◽  
Frank A. Pintar ◽  
Jason Lifshutz ◽  
Dennis J. Maiman
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Related Data ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Bending Modes ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Object The aim of this study was to determine the in vitro biomechanical responses of lumbar spinal segments after implantation of tapered cages. Methods Range of motion (ROM)– and stiffness-related data were determined in 10 human cadaveric T12–S1 columns subjected to flexion, extension, and lateral bending modes before and after anterior lumbar interbody fusion in which stand-alone LT-CAGE devices were used. The overall column showed no significant changes in ROM or stiffness. At the instrumented level, stiffness increased significantly (p < 0.05) in flexion and lateral bending modes. Indications of instability in extension were present, but these values were not statistically significant. There was no evidence of adjacent-level instability at any level in any mode, except for the segment superior to the fixation level in flexion; here there was a significant increase in ROM (p < 0.05) and a decrease in stiffness. Conclusions The anatomical conformity and bilateral placement of cages provide ample stability and rigidity at the treated level, comparable to that of other cage systems. Because hypermobility is traditionally related to early degenerative changes, the present results appear to suggest that cages do not significantly contribute to such alterations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document