Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Spine Journal 10/2009

01-10-2009 | Original Article

Comparative biomechanical investigation of a modular dynamic lumbar stabilization system and the Dynesys system

Authors: Philippe Gédet, Daniel Haschtmann, Paul A. Thistlethwaite, Stephen J. Ferguson

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 10/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

The goal of non-fusion stabilization is to reduce the mobility of the spine segment to less than that of the intact spine specimen, while retaining some residual motion. Several in vitro studies have been conducted on a dynamic system currently available for clinical use (Dynesys®). Under pure moment loading, a dependency of the biomechanical performance on spacer length has been demonstrated; this variability in implant properties is removed with a modular concept incorporating a discrete flexible element. An in vitro study was performed to compare the kinematic and stabilizing properties of a modular dynamic lumbar stabilization system with those of Dynesys, under the influence of an axial preload. Six human cadaver spine specimens (L1–S1) were tested in a spine loading apparatus. Flexibility measurements were performed by applying pure bending moments of 8 Nm, about each of the three principal anatomical axes, with a simultaneously applied axial preload of 400 N. Specimens were tested intact, and following creation of a defect at L3–L4, with the Dynesys implant, with the modular implant and, after removal of the hardware, the injury state. Segmental range of motion (ROM) was reduced for flexion–extension and lateral bending with both implants. Motion in flexion was reduced to less than 20% of the intact level, in extension to approximately 40% and in lateral bending a motion reduction to less than 40% was measured. In torsion, the total ROM was not significantly different from that of the intact level. The expectations for a flexible posterior stabilizing implant are not fulfilled. The assumption that a device which is particularly compliant in bending allows substantial intersegmental motion cannot be fully supported when one considers that such devices are placed at a location far removed from the natural rotation center of the intervertebral joint.
Literature
1.
2.
go back to reference Beastall J, Karadimas E, Siddiqui M et al (2007) The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system: a preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance imaging findings. Spine 32(6):685–690PubMedCrossRef Beastall J, Karadimas E, Siddiqui M et al (2007) The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system: a preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance imaging findings. Spine 32(6):685–690PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Cripton PA, Bruehlmann SB, Orr TE et al (2000) In vitro axial preload application during spine flexibility testing: towards reduced apparatus-related artefacts. J Biomech 33(12):1559–1568PubMedCrossRef Cripton PA, Bruehlmann SB, Orr TE et al (2000) In vitro axial preload application during spine flexibility testing: towards reduced apparatus-related artefacts. J Biomech 33(12):1559–1568PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Cripton PA, Jain GM, Wittenberg RH et al (2000) Load-sharing characteristics of stabilized lumbar spine segments. Spine 25(2):170–179PubMedCrossRef Cripton PA, Jain GM, Wittenberg RH et al (2000) Load-sharing characteristics of stabilized lumbar spine segments. Spine 25(2):170–179PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Dhillon N, Bass E, Lotz J (2001) Effect of frozen storage on the creep behaviour of human intervertebral discs. Spine 26(8):883–888PubMedCrossRef Dhillon N, Bass E, Lotz J (2001) Effect of frozen storage on the creep behaviour of human intervertebral discs. Spine 26(8):883–888PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Hodges SD (1999) Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion: a review of clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic studies. Am J Orthop 28:336–340PubMed Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Hodges SD (1999) Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion: a review of clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic studies. Am J Orthop 28:336–340PubMed
7.
go back to reference Freudiger S, Dubois G, Lorrain M (1999) Dynamic neutralization of the lumbar spine confirmed on a new lumbar spine simulator in vitro. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 119:127–132PubMedCrossRef Freudiger S, Dubois G, Lorrain M (1999) Dynamic neutralization of the lumbar spine confirmed on a new lumbar spine simulator in vitro. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 119:127–132PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P et al (2001) Volvo award winner in clinical studies: lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial for the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 26:2521–2532 (discussion 32–34)PubMedCrossRef Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P et al (2001) Volvo award winner in clinical studies: lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial for the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 26:2521–2532 (discussion 32–34)PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Gédet P, Thistlethwaite PA, Ferguson SJ (2007) Minimizing errors during in vitro testing of multisegmental spine specimens: considerations for apparatus design and experimental protocol. J Biomech 40(8):1881–1885PubMedCrossRef Gédet P, Thistlethwaite PA, Ferguson SJ (2007) Minimizing errors during in vitro testing of multisegmental spine specimens: considerations for apparatus design and experimental protocol. J Biomech 40(8):1881–1885PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Jensen LM, Dawson JM, Springer S et al (2004) Kinematic evaluation of non-rigid posterior stabilization. Proceedings of the 50th annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society, San Francisco Jensen LM, Dawson JM, Springer S et al (2004) Kinematic evaluation of non-rigid posterior stabilization. Proceedings of the 50th annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society, San Francisco
11.
go back to reference Lee CK (1988) Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine 13:375–377PubMedCrossRef Lee CK (1988) Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine 13:375–377PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Lehmann TR, Spratt KF, Tozzi JE et al (1987) Long-term follow-up of lower lumbar fusion patients. Spine 12(2):97–104PubMedCrossRef Lehmann TR, Spratt KF, Tozzi JE et al (1987) Long-term follow-up of lower lumbar fusion patients. Spine 12(2):97–104PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Link HD (2002) History, design and biomechanics of the LINK SB Charite artificial disc. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):98–105 Link HD (2002) History, design and biomechanics of the LINK SB Charite artificial disc. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):98–105
14.
go back to reference Mayer HM, Wiechert K, Korge A et al (2002) Minimally invasive total disc replacement: surgical technique and preliminary clinical results. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):124–130 Mayer HM, Wiechert K, Korge A et al (2002) Minimally invasive total disc replacement: surgical technique and preliminary clinical results. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):124–130
15.
go back to reference McKinnon ME, Vickers MR, Ruddock VM et al (1997) Community studies of the health service implications of low back pain. Spine 22:2161–2166PubMedCrossRef McKinnon ME, Vickers MR, Ruddock VM et al (1997) Community studies of the health service implications of low back pain. Spine 22:2161–2166PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC et al (2006) Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system: an in vitro study. Eur Spine J 15:913–922PubMedCrossRef Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC et al (2006) Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system: an in vitro study. Eur Spine J 15:913–922PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Panjabi MM (1988) Biomechanical evaluation of spinal fixation devices: I. A conceptual framework. Spine 13(10):1129–1134PubMedCrossRef Panjabi MM (1988) Biomechanical evaluation of spinal fixation devices: I. A conceptual framework. Spine 13(10):1129–1134PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Panjabi MM, Krag M, Summers D et al (1988) Biomechanical time-tolerance of fresh cadaveric human spine specimens. J Orthop Res 3(3):292–300CrossRef Panjabi MM, Krag M, Summers D et al (1988) Biomechanical time-tolerance of fresh cadaveric human spine specimens. J Orthop Res 3(3):292–300CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Meade KP et al (1999) A follower load increases the load-carrying capacity of the lumbar spine in compression. Spine 24:1003–1009PubMedCrossRef Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Meade KP et al (1999) A follower load increases the load-carrying capacity of the lumbar spine in compression. Spine 24:1003–1009PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Schlegel JD, Smith JA, Schleusener RL (1996) Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbrosacral fusion. Spine 21:970–981PubMedCrossRef Schlegel JD, Smith JA, Schleusener RL (1996) Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbrosacral fusion. Spine 21:970–981PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T et al (2003) Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech 16(4):418–423PubMed Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T et al (2003) Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech 16(4):418–423PubMed
22.
go back to reference Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T et al (2006) Influence of a dynamic stabilization system on load bearing of a bridged disc: an in vitro study of intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J 15(8):1276–1285PubMedCrossRef Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T et al (2006) Influence of a dynamic stabilization system on load bearing of a bridged disc: an in vitro study of intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J 15(8):1276–1285PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Seitsalo S, Schlenzka D, Poussa M et al (1997) Disc degeneration in young patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis treated operatively or conservatively: a long-term follow-up. Eur Spine J 6(6):393–397PubMedCrossRef Seitsalo S, Schlenzka D, Poussa M et al (1997) Disc degeneration in young patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis treated operatively or conservatively: a long-term follow-up. Eur Spine J 6(6):393–397PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O (2002) The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non fusion system. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):170–178 Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O (2002) The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non fusion system. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):170–178
25.
go back to reference Tawackoli A, Marco R, Liebschner MA (2004) The effect of compressive axial preload on the flexibility of the thoracolumbar spine. Spine 29(9):988–993PubMedCrossRef Tawackoli A, Marco R, Liebschner MA (2004) The effect of compressive axial preload on the flexibility of the thoracolumbar spine. Spine 29(9):988–993PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Wilke H-J, Jungkunz B, Wenger K et al (1998) Spinal segment range of motion as a function of in vitro test conditions. Effects of exposure period, accumulated cycles, angular deformation rate and moisture condition. Anat Rec 251(1):15–19PubMedCrossRef Wilke H-J, Jungkunz B, Wenger K et al (1998) Spinal segment range of motion as a function of in vitro test conditions. Effects of exposure period, accumulated cycles, angular deformation rate and moisture condition. Anat Rec 251(1):15–19PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L (1998) Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J 7:148–154PubMedCrossRef Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L (1998) Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J 7:148–154PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparative biomechanical investigation of a modular dynamic lumbar stabilization system and the Dynesys system
Authors
Philippe Gédet
Daniel Haschtmann
Paul A. Thistlethwaite
Stephen J. Ferguson
Publication date
01-10-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 10/2009
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1077-7

Other articles of this Issue 10/2009

European Spine Journal 10/2009 Go to the issue