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

Biomechanics Laboratory, Orthopaedic Hospital, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin, Germany.
European Spine Journal (Impact Factor: 2.07). 09/2007; 16(8):1223-31. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-006-0292-8
Source: PubMed


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.

Download full-text


Available from: Antonius Rohlmann
  • Source
    • "Undoubtedly, PEEK rods and Dynesys implants have different designs and different elasticity moduli. However, it has been revealed that stabilizations only of the modulus with a very low degree of stiffness influenced ROM levels markedly [22, 23] . Specifically , the relationship between modulus and ROM do not exhibit a linear dependence. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rod system is a novel pedicle-based dynamic stabilization system. This study evaluated clinical and radiographic outcomes of non-fusion surgery by PEEK rod systems for treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases with a 2-year follow-up. Methods From February 2012 to October 2012, 38 patients who underwent non-fusion surgery using PEEK rod systems were included in the study. Data on Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score and Japanese Orthopaedics Association (JOA) score were collected and radiographs were obtained to evaluate disc height index (DHI) and range of motion (ROM) at each interval. Results Both JOA and ODI scores significantly improved postoperatively. DHI showed a slight increase immediately after the surgery but gradually dropped below preoperative levels. Mean ROM values changed from 8.8° preoperatively to 1.8° at the 2-year follow-up point. Screw loosening occurred in one case at the 2-year follow-up. Conclusions The preliminary results indicated a significant improvement in clinical outcomes and advantageous implant safety. The non-fusion procedure using PEEK rod systems might be a viable alternative for treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. The distraction technique needs to be improved for better postoperative DHI.
    Preview · Article · Dec 2016 · BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
  • Source
    • "There is certainly evidence of osteoblastic response to mechanical activation, in various forms, as well as increases in bone formation rate following bouts of loading [5] [6]. Semirigid PEEK instrumentation attempts to allow loading through the anterior column, but most studies show the stiffness of these constructs to be relatively high [7]. One hypothesized benefit of a dynamic device is to restore the loading of the damaged disc to similar thresholds as a normal disc would tolerate. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Alternatives to conventional rigid fusion have been proposed for several conditions related to degenerative disc disease when nonoperative treatment has failed. Semirigid fixation, in the form of dynamic stabilization or PEEK rods, is expected to provide compression under loading as well as an intermediate level of stabilization. This study systematically examines both the load-sharing characteristics and kinematics of these two devices compared to the standard of internal rigid fixators. Load-sharing was studied by using digital pressure films inserted between an artificially machined disc and two loading fixtures. Rigid rods, PEEK rods, and the dynamic stabilization system were inserted posteriorly for stabilization. The kinematics were quantified on ten, human, cadaver lumbosacral spines (L3-S1) which were tested under a pure bending moment, in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. The magnitude of load transmission through the anterior column was significantly greater with the dynamic device compared to PEEK rods and rigid rods. The contact pressures were distributed more uniformly, throughout the disc with the dynamic stabilization devices, and had smaller maximum point-loading (pressures) on any particular point within the disc. Kinematically, the motion was reduced by both semirigid devices similarly in all directions, with slight rigidity imparted by a lateral interbody device.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2013
  • Source
    • "Examples of such devices are Isobar TTL (Scient'x, Maitland, FL), a metal rod with disc springs, the CD Horizon Legacy PEEK rod (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN), and Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization System (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN) consisting of a polymeric dampener and posterior tensioning cord. Semi-rigid fixation devices attempt to offload adjacent levels, but most studies show the stiffness of these constructs to be too high to have much of an effect on adjacent level loading [18–21]. These devices have also been clinically recommended for stabilization and modulation of the load distribution across mildly degenerated discs in an attempt to alleviate discogenic back pain and potentially enable regeneration of disc cells [22, 23]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Conventional posterior dynamic stabilization devices demonstrated a tendency towards highly rigid stabilization approximating that of titanium rods in flexion. In extension, they excessively offload the index segment, making the device as the sole load-bearing structure, with concerns of device failure. The goal of this study was to compare the kinematics and intradiscal pressure of monosegmental stabilization utilizing a new device that incorporates both a flexion and extension dampening spacer to that of rigid internal fixation and a conventional posterior dynamic stabilization device. The hypothesis was the new device would minimize the overloading of adjacent levels compared to rigid and conventional devices which can only bend but not stretch. The biomechanics were compared following injury in a human cadaveric lumbosacral spine under simulated physiological loading conditions. The stabilization with the new posterior dynamic stabilization device significantly reduced motion uniformly in all loading directions, but less so than rigid fixation. The evaluation of adjacent level motion and pressure showed some benefit of the new device when compared to rigid fixation. Posterior dynamic stabilization designs which both bend and stretch showed improved kinematic and load-sharing properties when compared to rigid fixation and when indirectly compared to existing conventional devices without a bumper.
    Full-text · Article · Apr 2013
Show more