Top

Published in:

01-02-2006 | Original Article

Compliance of the L5-S1 spinal unit: a comparative study between an unconstrained and a partially constrained system

Authors: E. A. Charriere, T. Beutler, M. Caride, P. Mordasini, T. E. Orr, P. K. Zysset

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 1/2006

Abstract

A comparison between an unconstrained and a partially constrained system for in vitro biomechanical testing of the L5-S1 spinal unit was conducted. The objective was to compare the compliance and the coupling of the L5-S1 unit measured with an unconstrained and a partially constrained test for the three major physiological motions of the human spine. Very few studies have compared unconstrained and partially constrained testing systems using the same cadaveric functional spinal units (FSUs). Seven human L5-S1 units were therefore tested on both a pneumatic, unconstrained, and a servohydraulic, partially constrained system. Each FSU was tested along three motions: flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB) and axial rotation (AR). The obtained kinematics on both systems is not equivalent, except for the FE case, where both motions are similar. The directions of coupled motions were similar for both tests, but their magnitudes were smaller in the partially constrained configuration. The use of a partially constrained system to characterize LB and AR of the lumbosacral FSU decreased significantly the measured stiffness of the segment. The unconstrained system is today’s “gold standard” for the characterization of FSUs. The selected partially constrained method seems also to be an appropriate way to characterize FSUs for specific applications. Care should be taken using the latter method when the coupled motions are important.

Abumi K, Panjabi MM, Duranceau J (1989) Biomechanical evaluation of spinal fixation devices. Part III. Stability provided by six spinal fixation devices. Spine 14:1249–1255PubMed

Adams M, Hutton W (1981) The relevance of torsion to the mechanical derangement of the lumbar spine. Spine 6:241–248PubMed

Ahmed AM, Duncan NA, Burke DL (1990) The effect of facet geometry on the axial torque-rotation response of lumbar motion segments. Spine 15:391–401PubMed

Andersson GBJ, Schultz AB (1979) Effects of fluid injection on mechanical properties of intervertebral discs. J Biomech 12:453–458CrossRefPubMed

Asazuma T, Stokes IAF, Moreland MS et al (1990) Intersegmental spinal flexibility with lumbosacral instrumentation: an in vitro biomechanical investigation. Spine 15:1153–1158PubMed

Ashman RB, Birch JB, Bone LB et al (1988) Mechanical testing of spinal instrumentation. Clin Orthop 227:113–125PubMed

Boden SD, Martin C, Rudolph R et al (1994) Increase of motion between lumbar vertebrae after excision of the capsule and cartilage of the facets-a cadaver study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76:1847–1853PubMed

Brodke DS, Dick JC, Kunz DN et al (1997) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion—a biomechanical comparison, including a new threaded cage. Spine 22:26–31CrossRefPubMed

Charrière E (2002) A calcium phosphate implant with controlled macroporosity for anterior L5-S1 interbody fusion. Ph.D. Thesis No. 2507, EPFL-Lausanne

10.

Edwards WT (1991) Biomechanics of posterior lumbar fixation. Analysis of testing methodologies. Spine 16:1224–1232PubMed

11.

Goel VK, Goyal S, Clark C et al (1985) Kinematics of the whole lumbar spine: effect of discectomy. Spine 10:543–554PubMed

12.

Goel VK, Wilder DG, Pope MH et al (1995) Controversy: biomechanical testing of the spine. Load-controlled versus displacement-controlled analysis. Spine 20:2354–2357PubMed

13.

Grassmann S, Oxland TR, Gerich U et al (1998) Constrained testing conditions affect the axial rotation response of the lumbar functional spinal units. Spine 23:1155–1162CrossRefPubMed

14.

Gunzburg R, Hutton W, Fraser R (1991) Axial rotation of the lumbar spine and the effect of flexion. Spine 16:22–28PubMed

16.

Haher T, O’Brien M, Felmly WT et al (1992) Instantaneous axis of rotation as a function of the three columns of the spine. Spine 17 (Suppl):S149–S154PubMed

15.

Haher TR, O’Brien M, Dryer JW et al (1994) The role of the lumbar facet joints in spinal stability: identification of alternative paths of loading. Spine 19:2667–2671PubMed

17.

Kim YE, Goel VK (1990) Effects of testing mode on the biomechanical response of a spinal motion segment. J Biomech 23:289–291 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Kinzel GL, Hall AS, Hillberry BM (1972) Measurement of the total motion between two body segments-I analytical development. J Biomech 5:93–105CrossRefPubMed

19.

Kunz DN, McCabe RP, Zdeblick TA et al (1994) A multi-degree of freedom system for biomechanical testing. J Biomech Eng 116:371–373PubMed

20.

Lund T, Oxland TR, Jost B et al (1998) Interbody cage stabilization in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:351–359CrossRefPubMed

21.

Nachemson AL, Schultz AB, Berkson MH. Mechanical properties of human lumbar spine motion segments: influence of age, sex, disc level, and degeneration. Spine 4:1–8

22.

Oxland TR, Crisco JJ III, Panjabi MM et al (1992) The effect of injury on rotational coupling at the lumbosacral joint. A biomechanical investigation. Spine 17:74–80PubMed

23.

Panjabi MM (1988) Biomechanical evaluation of spinal fixation devices: 1. A conceptual framework. Spine 13:1129–1134PubMed

24.

Panjabi MM, Brand RM, White AA (1976) Three-dimensional flexibility and stiffness properties of the human thoracic spine. J Biomech 9:185–192CrossRefPubMed

25.

Panjabi MM, Kato Y, Hoffman H et al (2000) A study of stiffness protocol as exemplified by testing of a burst fracture model in sagittal plane. Spine 21:2748–2754CrossRef

26.

Panjabi MM, Oxland TR, Yamamoto I, et al (1994) Mechanical behavior of the human lumbar and lumbosacral spine as shown by the three-dimensional load-displacement curves. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76:413–424PubMed

27.

Pearcy M, Portek I, Shepherd J (1984) Three-dimensional X-ray analysis of normal movement in the lumbar spine. Spine 9:294–300PubMed

28.

Pearcy MJ, Tibrewal SB (1984) Axial rotation and lateral bending in the normal lumbar spine measured by three-dimensional radiography. Spine 9:582–587PubMed

29.

Schultz AB, Warwick DN, Berkson MH et al (1979) Mechanical properties of human lumbar motion segments-part I: responses in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and torsion. J Biomech Eng 101:46–52

30.

Tencer AF, Ahmed AM, Burke DL (1982) Some static mechanical properties of the lumbar intervertebral joint, intact and injured. J Biomech Eng 104:193–201PubMed

31.

Tencer AF, Hampton D, Eddy S (1995) Biomechanical properties of threaded inserts for lumbar interbody spinal fusion. Spine 20:2408–2414PubMed

32.

Wilke HJ, Claes L, Schmitt H et al (1994) A universal spine tester for in vitro experiments with muscle force simulation. Eur Spine J 3:91–97PubMed

33.

Woltring HJ, Huiskes R, De Lange A et al (1985) Finite centroid and helical axis estimation from noisy landmark measurements in the study of human joint kinematics. Biomechanics 18:379–389CrossRef

Title: Compliance of the L5-S1 spinal unit: a comparative study between an unconstrained and a partially constrained system
Authors: E. A. Charriere
T. Beutler
M. Caride
P. Mordasini
T. E. Orr
P. K. Zysset
Publication date: 01-02-2006
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 1/2006
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0807-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Compliance of the L5-S1 spinal unit: a comparative study between an unconstrained and a partially constrained system

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2006

Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 1: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity

Biomechanical in vitro comparison of different mono- and bisegmental anterior procedures with regard to the strategy for fracture stabilisation using minimally invasive techniques

Efficacy and cost effectiveness of harmonic scalpel compared with electrocautery in posterior instrumentation of the spine

Effects of chronic low back pain on trunk coordination and back muscle activity during walking: changes in motor control

Biomechanical in vitro comparison of different mono- and bisegmental anterior procedures with regard to the strategy for fracture stabilisation using minimally invasive techniques

Relationship between low-back pain, muscle spasm and pressure pain thresholds in patients with lumbar disc herniation