Article

Comparison of the effects of bilateral posterior dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis

Biomechanics Laboratory, Orthopaedic Hospital, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin, Germany.
European Spine Journal (Impact Factor: 2.47). 09/2007; 16(8):1223-31. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-006-0292-8
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A bilateral dynamic stabilization device is assumed to alter favorable the movement and load transmission of a spinal segment without the intention of fusion of that segment. Little is known about the effect of a posterior dynamic fixation device on the mechanical behavior of the lumbar spine. Muscle forces were disregarded in the few biomechanical studies published. The aim of this study was to determine how the spinal loads are affected by a bilateral posterior dynamic implant compared to a rigid fixator which does not claim to maintain mobility. A paired monosegmental posterior dynamic implant was inserted at level L3/L4 in a validated finite element model of the lumbar spine. Both a healthy and a slightly degenerated disc were assumed at implant level. Distraction of the bridged segment was also simulated. For comparison, a monosegmental rigid fixation device as well as the effect of implant stiffness on intersegmental rotation were studied. The model was loaded with the upper body weight and muscle forces to simulate the four loading cases standing, 30 degrees flexion, 20 degrees extension, and 10 degrees axial rotation. Intersegmental rotations, intradiscal pressure and facet joint forces were calculated at implant level and at the adjacent level above the implant. Implant forces were also determined. Compared to an intact spine, a dynamic implant reduces intersegmental rotation at implant level, decreases intradiscal pressure in a healthy disc for extension and standing, and decreases facet joint forces at implant level. With a rigid implant, these effects are more pronounced. With a slightly degenerated disc intersegmental rotation at implant level is mildly increased for extension and axial rotation and intradiscal pressure is strongly reduced for extension. After distraction, intradiscal pressure values are markedly reduced only for the rigid implant. At the adjacent level L2/L3, a posterior implant has only a minor effect on intradiscal pressure. However, it increases facet joint forces at this level for axial rotation and extension. Posterior implants are mostly loaded in compression. Forces in the implant are generally higher in a rigid fixator than in a dynamic implant. Distraction strongly increases both axial and shear forces in the implant. A stiffness of the implant greater than 1,000 N/mm has only a minor effect on intersegmental rotation. The mechanical effects of a dynamic implant are similar to those of a rigid fixation device, except after distraction, when intradiscal pressure is considerably lower for rigid than for dynamic implants. Thus, the results of this study demonstrate that a dynamic implant does not necessarily reduce axial spinal loads compared to an un-instrumented spine.

0 Followers
 · 
83 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose Dynamic implants have been developed to address potential adjacent level effects due to rigid instrumentation. Rates of revision surgeries may be reduced by using improved implants in the primary surgery. Prior to clinical use, implants should be rigorously tested ex vivo. The objective of our study was to characterize the load-sharing and kinematic behavior of a novel low-stiffness spinal implant. Methods A human cadaveric model of degenerative spondylolisthesis was tested in shear. Lumbar functional spinal units (N = 15) were tested under a static 300 N axial compression force and a cyclic anterior shear force (5–250 N). Translation was tracked with a motion capture system. A novel implant was compared to three standard implants with shear stiffness ranging from low to high. All implants were instrumented with strain gauges to measure the supported shear force. Each implant was affixed to each specimen, and the specimens were tested intact and in two progressively destabilized states. Results Specimen condition and implant type affected implant load-sharing and specimen translation (p p > 0.2). Conclusions The novel implant behaved similarly to the medium-stiffness implant in both load-sharing and translation despite having a different design and stiffness. Complex implant design and specimen–implant interaction necessitate pre-clinical testing of novel implants. Further in vitro testing in axial rotation and flexion–extension is recommended as they are highly relevant loading directions for non-rigid implants.
    European Spine Journal 01/2015; DOI:10.1007/s00586-014-3735-7 · 2.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose Dynamic implants for the human spine are used to re-establish regular segmental motion. However, the results have often been unsatisfactory and complications such as screw loosening are common. Individualisation of appliances and precision implantation are needed to improve the outcome of this procedure. Computer simulation, virtual implant optimisation and image guidance were used to improve the technique. Methods A human lumbar spine computer model was developed using multi-body simulation software. The model simulates spinal motion under load and degenerative changes. After virtual degeneration of a L4/5 segment, virtual pedicle screw-based implants were introduced. The implants’ positions and properties were iteratively optimised. The resulting implant positions were used as operative plan for image guidance and finally implemented in a physical spine model. Results In the simulation, the introduction and optimisation of virtually designed dynamic implants could partly compensate for the effects of virtual lumbar segment degeneration. The optimised operative plan was exported to two different image-guidance systems for transfer to a physical spine model. Conclusion Three-dimensional computer graphic simulation is a feasible means to develop operative plans for dynamic spinal stabilization. These operative plans can be transferred to commercially available image-guidance systems for use in implantation of physical implants in a spine model. This concept has important potential in the design of operative plans and implants for individualised dynamic spine stabilization surgery.
    International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 01/2015; DOI:10.1007/s11548-014-1138-1 · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this biomechanical study was to evaluate the stability provided by a newly developed shape memory alloy hook (SMAH) in a cadaveric transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) model. Six human cadaveric spines (L1-S2) were tested in an in vitro flexibility experiment by applying pure moments of ±8 Nm in flexion/extension, left/right lateral bending, and left/right axial rotation. After intact testing, a TLIF was performed at L4-5. Each specimen was tested for the following constructs: unilateral SMAH (USMAH); bilateral SMAH (BSMAH); unilateral pedicle screws and rods (UPS); and bilateral pedicle screws and rods (BPS). The L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5-S1 range of motion (ROM) were recorded by a Motion Analysis System. Compared to the other constructs, the BPS provided the most stability. The UPS significantly reduced the ROM in extension/flexion and lateral bending; the BSMAH significantly reduced the ROM in extension/flexion, lateral bending, and axial rotation; and the USMAH significantly reduced the ROM in flexion and left lateral bending compared with the intact spine (p<0.05). The USMAH slightly reduced the ROM in extension, right lateral bending and axial rotation (p>0.05). Stability provided by the USMAH compared with the UPS was not significantly different. ROMs of adjacent segments increased in all fixed constructs (p>0.05). Bilateral SMAH fixation can achieve immediate stability after L4-5 TLIF in vitro. Further studies are required to determine whether the SMAH can achieve fusion in vivo and alleviate adjacent segment degeneration.
    PLoS ONE 12/2014; 9(12):e114326. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114326 · 3.53 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
41 Downloads
Available from
May 16, 2014