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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate one-year results of using dynamic spacers in listhesis grade I of Meyerding using Oswestry Disability Index. METHODS: The disability scale review was based in the electronic and radiographic history of patients according to criteria in the period from January 2008 to December 2010, in order to conduct a cohort study, retrospective, longitudinal, and observational. RESULTS: The Oswestry index before surgery was 3.4% mild, 55.2% moderate and severe 41.4%, while the postoperative was 79.3% mild and 20.7% moderate. The most common surgery performed was exploration and release in 72.4%, and only 27.6% had discectomy. Patients had pain radiating to right lower limb in 37.9%, to the left lower limb in 44.8% and to both lower extremities in 17.2%. Pain radiating to the lower limb after surgery was found only in 2.4%, and 100% of the cases had some type of radiating pain. The DIAM interspinous implant was used in 79.3%, and the Wallis in 20.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with interspinous spacer has a low rate of reoperation and at least during one year presented significant improvement in the rate of disability.
    Coluna/ Columna 12/2012; 12(2):119-123.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Surgeons often use spinal fixators to manage spinal instability. Dynesys (DY) is a type of dynamic fixator that is designed to restore spinal stability and to provide flexibility. The aim of this study was to design a new spinal fixator using topology optimization [the topology design (TD) system]. Here, we constructed finite element (FE) models of degenerative disc disease, DY, and the TD system. A hybrid-controlled analysis was applied to each of the three FE models. The rod structure of the topology optimization was modelled at a 39 % reduced volume compared with the rigid rod. The TD system was similar to the DY system in terms of stiffness. In contrast, the TD system reduced the cranial adjacent disc stress and facet contact force at the adjacent level. The TD system also reduced pedicle screw stresses in flexion, extension, and lateral bending.
    Medical & Biological Engineering 04/2014; · 1.76 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A noble model of the whole lumbar spine (L1~L5) considering all the passive elements, especially the ligaments of the lumbar spine was developed. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the shear stress of the AVB and the ALL and the effect of a compressive follower pre-load on all ligaments with various motions. The result shows that the shear stress at the AVB and the ALL are positively correlated. This indicates that the shear stress of the ligament can be used an index of low back pain. Regarding the effect of a follower pre-load, contrary to our expectation, the shear stress of the ligaments was not always reduced by applying follower pre-load; flexion was decreased and axial rotation did not change, while extension and lateral bending were increased.
    Transactions of the Korean Society of Automotive Engineers. 01/2010; 18(6).

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 16, 2014