Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society

The Korean Neurosurgical Society (대한신경외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of Device Rigidity and Physiological Loading on Spinal Kinematics after Dynamic Stabilization : An In-Vitro Biomechanical Study

  • Chun, Kwonsoo (Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine) ;
  • Yang, Inchul (Department of Medical Biotechnology, Dongguk University) ;
  • Kim, Namhoon (Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine) ;
  • Cho, Dosang (Department of Neurosurgery, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2014.10.17
  • Accepted : 2015.07.03
  • Published : 2015.11.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective : To investigate the effects of posterior implant rigidity on spinal kinematics at adjacent levels by utilizing a cadaveric spine model with simulated physiological loading. Methods : Five human lumbar spinal specimens (L3 to S1) were obtained and checked for abnormalities. The fresh specimens were stripped of muscle tissue, with care taken to preserve the spinal ligaments and facet joints. Pedicle screws were implanted in the L4 and L5 vertebrae of each specimen. Specimens were tested under 0 N and 400 N axial loading. Five different posterior rods of various elastic moduli (intact, rubber, low-density polyethylene, aluminum, and titanium) were tested. Segmental range of motion (ROM), center of rotation (COR) and intervertebral disc pressure were investigated. Results : As the rigidity of the posterior rods increased, both the segmental ROM and disc pressure at L4-5 decreased, while those values increased at adjacent levels. Implant stiffness saturation was evident, as the ROM and disc pressure were only marginally increased beyond an implant stiffness of aluminum. Since the disc pressures of adjacent levels were increased by the axial loading, it was shown that the rigidity of the implants influenced the load sharing between the implant and the spinal column. The segmental CORs at the adjacent disc levels translated anteriorly and inferiorly as rigidity of the device increased. Conclusion : These biomechanical findings indicate that the rigidity of the dynamic stabilization implant and physiological loading play significant roles on spinal kinematics at adjacent disc levels, and will aid in further device development.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahn YH, Chen WM, Lee KY, Park KW, Lee SJ : Comparison of the load-sharing characteristics between pedicle-based dynamic and rigid rod devices. Biomed Mater 3 : 044101, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-6041/3/4/044101
  2. Andersson GB : Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet 354 : 581-585, 1999 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(99)01312-4
  3. Bellini CM, Galbusera F, Raimondi MT, Mineo GV, Brayda-Bruno M : Biomechanics of the lumbar spine after dynamic stabilization. J Spinal Disord Tech 20 : 423-429, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e318031af6f
  4. Chen CS, Cheng CK, Liu CL, Lo WH : Stress analysis of the disc adjacent to interbody fusion in lumbar spine. Med Eng Phys 23 : 483-491, 2001
  5. Cheng BC, Gordon J, Cheng J, Welch WC : Immediate biomechanical effects of lumbar posterior dynamic stabilization above a circumferential fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32 : 2551-2557, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318158cdbe
  6. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Hodges SD : Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion : a review of clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic studies. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 28 : 336-340, 1999
  7. Evans JH : Biomechanics of lumbar fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res (193) : 38-46, 1985
  8. Freudiger S, Dubois G, Lorrain M : Dynamic neutralisation of the lumbar spine confirmed on a new lumbar spine simulator in vitro. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 119 : 127-132, 1999 https://doi.org/10.1007/s004020050375
  9. Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A; Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group : 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies : lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain : a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26 : 2521-2532; discussion 2532-2534, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200112010-00002
  10. Gere JM, Goodno BJ : Mechanics of Materials, ed 8. Stanford : Cengage Learning, 2012, pp1089-1094
  11. Gertzbein SD, Holtby R, Tile M, Kapasouri A, Chan KW, Cruickshank B : Determination of a locus of instantaneous centers of rotation of the lumbar disc by moiré fringes. A new technique. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 9 : 409-413, 1984 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198405000-00015
  12. Goel VK, Panjabi MM, Patwardhan AG, Dooris AP, Serhan H; American Society for Testing and Materials : Test protocols for evaluation of spinal implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88 Suppl 2 : 103-109, 2006 https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.E.01363
  13. Goto K, Tajima N, Chosa E, Totoribe K, Kubo S, Kuroki H, et al. : Effects of lumbar spinal fusion on the other lumbar intervertebral levels (three-dimensional finite element analysis). J Orthop Sci 8 : 577-584, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-003-0675-1
  14. Kim HJ, Bak KH, Chun HJ, Oh SJ, Kang TH, Yang MS : Posterior interspinous fusion device for one-level fusion in degenerative lumbar spine disease : comparison with pedicle screw fixation - preliminary report of at least one year follow up. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 52 : 359-364, 2012 https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2012.52.4.359
  15. Kim YS, Zhang HY, Moon BJ, Park KW, Ji KY, Lee WC : Nitinol spring rod dynamic stabilization system and Nitinol memory loops in surgical treatment for lumbar disc disorders : short-term follow up. Neurosurg Focus 22 : E10, 2007
  16. Lee CK : Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13 : 375-377, 1988 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198803000-00029
  17. Lee CK, Langrana NA : Lumbosacral spinal fusion. A biomechanical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 9 : 574-581, 1984 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198409000-00007
  18. Meyers K, Tauber M, Sudin Y, Fleischer S, Arnin U, Girardi F, et al. : Use of instrumented pedicle screws to evaluate load sharing in posterior dynamic stabilization systems. Spine J 8 : 926-932, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.08.008
  19. Niosi CA, Wilson DC, Zhu Q, Keynan O, Wilson DR, Oxland TR : The effect of dynamic posterior stabilization on facet joint contact forces : an in vitro investigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33 : 19-26, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e7f76
  20. Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC, Keynan O, Wilson DR, Oxland TR : Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system : an in vitro study. Eur Spine J 15 : 913-922, 2006 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-0948-9
  21. Panjabi M, Dvorak J, Duranceau J, Yamamoto I, Gerber M, Rauschning W, et al. : Three-dimensional movements of the upper cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13 : 726-730, 1988 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198807000-00003
  22. Panjabi MM : Centers and angles of rotation of body joints : a study of errors and optimization. J Biomech 12 : 911-920, 1979 https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(79)90059-9
  23. Patwardhan AG, Carandang G, Ghanayem AJ, Havey RM, Cunningham B, Voronov LI, et al. : Compressive preload improves the stability of anterior lumbar interbody fusion cage constructs. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A : 1749-1756, 2003
  24. Pearcy M, Portek I, Shepherd J : Three-dimensional x-ray analysis of normal movement in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 9 : 294-297, 1984 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198404000-00013
  25. Pearcy MJ, Bogduk N : Instantaneous axes of rotation of the lumbar intervertebral joints. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13 : 1033-1041, 1988 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198809000-00011
  26. Pearcy MJ, Tibrewal SB : Lumbar intervertebral disc and ligament deformations measured in vivo. Clin Orthop Relat Res (191) : 281-286, 1984
  27. Sato K, Kikuchi S, Yonezawa T : In vivo intradiscal pressure measurement in healthy individuals and in patients with ongoing back problems. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24 : 2468-2474, 1999 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199912010-00008
  28. Schlegel JD, Smith JA, Schleusener RL : Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbosacral fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21 : 970-981, 1996 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199604150-00013
  29. Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, Claes L, Wilke HJ : Influence of a dynamic stabilisation system on load bearing of a bridged disc : an in vitro study of intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J 15 : 1276-1285, 2006 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-0032-5
  30. Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, Dipl-Ing, Claes L, Wilke HJ : Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments : an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech 16 : 418-423, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1097/00024720-200308000-00015
  31. Shin DS, Lee K, Kim D : Biomechanical study of lumbar spine with dynamic stabilization device using finite element method. Computer-Aided Design 39 : 559-567, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2007.03.005
  32. Swanson KE, Lindsey DP, Hsu KY, Zucherman JF, Yerby SA : The effects of an interspinous implant on intervertebral disc pressures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28 : 26-32, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200301010-00008
  33. White AA, Panjabi MM : Clinical biomechanics of the spine, ed 2. Philadelphia : Lippincott, 1990, pp109-112
  34. Xu HZ, Wang XY, Chi YL, Zhu QA, Lin Y, Huang QS, et al. : Biomechanical evaluation of a dynamic pedicle screw fixation device. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 21 : 330-336, 2006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.12.004

Cited by

  1. Range of Motion According to the Fusion Level after Lumbar Spine Fusion: A Retrospective Study vol.4, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.21129/nerve.2018.4.2.55
  2. Ex vivo biomechanical study on a porcine model of three types of stabilisation in scoliosis treatment vol.22, pp.suppl1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2020.1714982
  3. Biomechanical analysis of a new bilateral pedicle screw fixator system based on topological optimization vol.21, pp.7, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12541-020-00336-6