Kinematic and mechanical comparisons of lumbar hybrid fixation using Dynesys and Cosmic systems

Stability simulation analysis of targeted puncture in L4/5 intervertebral space for PELD surgery

Introduction: The application prospects of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) as a minimally invasive spinal surgery method in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation are extensive. This study aims to find the optimal entry angle for the trephine at the L4/5 intervertebral space, which causes less lumbar damage and has greater postoperative stability. To achieve this, we conduct a three-dimensional simulated analysis of the degree of damage caused by targeted puncture-based trephine osteotomy on the lumbar spine. Methods: We gathered clinical CT data from patients to construct a lumbar model. This model was used to simulate and analyze the variations in trephine osteotomy volume resulting from targeted punctures at the L4/5 interspace. Furthermore, according to these variations in osteotomy volume, we created Finite Element Analysis (FEA) models specifically for the trephine osteotomy procedure. We then applied mechanical loads to conduct range of motion and von Mises stress analyses on the lumbar motion unit. Results: In percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy, the smallest osteotomy volume occurred with a 20° entry angle, close to the base of the spinous process. The volume increased at 30° and reached its largest at 40°. In percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy, the largest osteotomy volume was observed with a 50° entry angle, passing through the facet joints, with smaller volumes at 60° and the smallest at 70°. In FEA, M6 exhibited the most notable biomechanical decline, particularly during posterior extension and right rotation. M2 and M3 showed significant differences primarily in rotation, whereas the differences between M3 and M4 were most evident in posterior extension and right rotation. M5 displayed their highest stress levels primarily in posterior extension, with significant variations observed in right rotation alongside M4. Conclusion: The appropriate selection of entry sites can reduce lumbar damage and increase stability. We suggest employing targeted punctures at a 30° angle for PEID and at a 60° angle for PTED at the L4/5 intervertebral space. Additionally, reducing the degree of facet joint damage is crucial to enhance postoperative stability in lumbar vertebral motion units.

Biomechanical comparisons of dynamic fixators with rod-rod and screw-spacer joints on lumbar hybrid fixation

BACKGROUND

Hybrid fixators with quite different joint design concepts have been widely to suppress adjacent segment degeneration problems. The kinematic and kinetic responses of the adjacent and transition segments and contact behaviors at the bone-screw interfaces served as the objective of this study.

METHODS

The moderately degenerated L4/L5 and mildly degenerative L3/L4 segments were respectively immobilized by a static fixator and further bridged by the rod-rod (Isobar) and screw-spacer (Dynesys) fixator. The joint stiffness and mobility of the rod-rod system and the cable pretension of the screw-spacer system were systematically varied.

FINDINGS

The flexion of the screw-spacer system provided higher mobility to the transition segment, reducing adjacent-segment problems. The cable pretension had a minor effect on the construct behavior. However, due to limited joint mobility, the rod-rod system showed higher constraints to the transition segment and induced more adjacent-segment compensations. The increased mobility of the rod-rod joint caused it to behave as a more dynamic fixator that increased adjacent-segment compensations at the transition segment. Comparatively, increasing the joint mobility showed more significant effects on the construct behaviors than decreasing the joint stiffness. Furthermore, increased constraint by the rod-rod joint induced higher stress and risk of loosening at the bone-screw interfaces INTERPRETATION: If the protection of the transition segment is the major concern, the rod-rod system can be used to constrain the intervertebral motion and share the higher loads through the fixator. Otherwise, the screw-spacer system is recommended in situations where higher loads onto the transition disc are allowable.

Lumbar dynamic pedicle-based stabilization versus fusion in degenerative disease: a multicenter, double-blind, prospective, randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Fusion is the standard of treatment for degenerative lumbar symptomatic instabilities. Dynamic stabilization is a potential alternative, with the aim of reducing pathological motion. Potential advantages are a reduction of surgical complexity and morbidity. The aim of this study was to assess whether dynamic stabilization is associated with a higher degree of functional improvement while reducing surgical complexity and thereby surgical duration and perioperative complications in comparison with lumbar fusion.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, double-blind, prospective, randomized, 2-arm superiority trial. Patients with symptomatic mono- or bisegmental lumbar degenerative disease with or without stenosis and instability were randomized 1:1 to instrumented fusion or pedicle-based dynamic stabilization. Patients underwent either rigid internal fixation and interbody fusion or pedicle-based dynamic stabilization. The primary endpoint was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, and secondary endpoints were pain, health-related quality of life, and patient satisfaction at 24 months.

RESULTS

Of 293 patients randomized to fusion or dynamic stabilization, 269 were available for analysis. The duration of surgery was significantly shorter for dynamic stabilization versus fusion, and the blood loss was significantly less for dynamic stabilization (380 ml vs 506 ml). Assessment of primary and secondary outcome parameters revealed no significant differences between groups. There were no differences in the incidence of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Dynamic pedicle-based stabilization can achieve similar clinical outcome as fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative instabilities. Secondary failures are not different between groups. However, dynamic stabilization is less complex than fusion and is a feasible alternative.

A parametric investigation on traditional and cortical bone trajectory screws for transpedicular fixation

Background

Many studies have been conducted to compare traditional trajectory (TT) and cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws; however, how screw parameters affect the biomechanical properties of TT and CBT screws, and so their efficacy remains to be investigated.

Methods

A finite element model was used to simulate screws with different trajectories, diameters, and lengths. Responses for implant and tissues at the adjacent and fixed segments were used as the comparison indices. The contact lengths and spanning areas of the inserted screws were defined and compared across the varieties.

Results

The trajectory and diameter had a greater impact on the responses from the implant and tissues than the length. The CBT has shorter length than the TT; however, the contact length and supporting area of the CBT within the cortical bone were 19.6%. and 14.5% higher than those of the TT, respectively. Overall, the TT and CBT were equally effective at stabilizing the instrumented segment, except for bending and rotation. The CBT experienced less adjacent segment compensations than the TT. With the same diameter and length, the TT was considerably less stressed than the CBT, especially for flexion and extension.

Conclusions

The CBT may provide less stress at adjacent segments compared with the TT. The CBT may provide more stiffer in osteoporotic segments than the TT due to greater contact with cortical bone and a wider supporting base between the paired screws. However, both entry point and insertion trajectory of the CBT should be carefully executed to avoid vertebral breach and ensure a stable cone-screw purchase.

Biomechanical Investigation of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Supplemented with Topping-off Instrumentation Using Different Dynamic Stabilization Devices

STUDY DESIGN

A biomechanical comparison study using finite element method.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate effects of different dynamic stabilization devices, including pedicle-based dynamic stabilization system (PBDSS) and interspinous process spacer (ISP), used for topping-off implants on biomechanical responses of human spine after lumbar interbody fusion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Topping-off stabilization technique has been proposed to prevent adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. PBDSS and ISP are the most used dynamic stabilizers for topping-off instrumentation. However, biomechanical differences between them still remain unclear.

METHODS

A validated, normal FE model of human lumbosacral spine was employed. Based on this model, rigid fusion at L4-L5 and moderately disc degeneration at L3-L4 were simulated and used as a comparison baseline. Subsequently, Bioflex and DIAM systems were instrumented at L3-L4 segment to construct PBDSS-based and ISP-based topping-off models. Biomechanical responses of the models to bending moments and vertical vibrational excitation were computed using FE static and random response analyses, respectively.

RESULTS

Results from static analysis showed that at L3-L4, the response parameters including annulus stress and range of motion were decreased by 41.6% to 85.2% for PBDSS-based model and by 6.3% to 67% for ISP-based model compared with rigid fusion model. At L2-L3, these parameters were lower in ISP-based model than in PBDSS-based model. Results from random response analysis showed that topping-off instrumentation increased resonant frequency of spine system but decreased dynamic response of annulus stress at L3-L4. PBDSS-based model generated lower dynamic stress than ISP-based model at L3-L4, but the dynamic stress was higher at L2-L3 for PBDSSbased model.

CONCLUSION

Under static and vibration loadings, the PBDSSbased topping-off device (Bioflex) provided a better protection for transition segment, and likelihood of degeneration of supraadjacent segment might be relatively lower when using the ISPbased topping-off device (DIAM).Level of Evidence: 5.

Biomechanical investigation of topping-off technique using an interspinous process device following lumbar interbody fusion under vibration loading

Topping-off technique has been proposed to prevent adjacent-segment degeneration/disease following spine fusion surgery. Nevertheless, few studies have investigated biomechanics of the fusion surgery with topping-off device under whole-body vibration (WBV). This biomechanical study aimed to investigate the vibration characteristics of human lumbar spine after topping-off surgery, and also to evaluate the effect of bony fusion on spine biomechanics. Based on a healthy finite-element model of lumbosacral spine (L1-sacrum), the models of topping-off surgery before and after bony fusion were developed. The simulated surgical procedures consisted of interbody fusion with rigid stabilizer at L4-L5 segment (rigid fusion) and dynamic stabilizer at degenerated L3-L4 segment. An interspinous implant, Device for Intervertebral Assisted Motion (DIAM, Medtronic Inc., Minnesota, USA), was used as the dynamic stabilizer. The stress responses of spine segments and implants under a vertical cyclic load were calculated and analyzed. The results showed that compared with rigid fusion alone, the topping-off technique significantly decreased disc stress at transition segment (L3-L4) as expected, and resulted in a slight increase in disc stress at its supra-adjacent segment (L2-L3). It indicated that the topping-off stabilization using DIAM might provide a good tradeoff between protection of transition segment and deterioration of its supra-adjacent segment during WBV. Also, it was found that bony fusion decreased stress in L4 inferior endplate and rigid stabilizer but had nearly no effect on stress in DIAM and L3-L4 disc, which was helpful to determine the biomechanical differences before and after bony fusion.

Biomechanical analysis of lumbar fusion with proximal interspinous process device implantation

Lumbar spinal fusion may cause adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) in the long term. Recently, inserting an interspinous process device (IPD) proximal to the fusion has been proposed to prevent ASD. The aim of this study was to investigate the biomechanics of lumbar fusion with proximal IPD implantation (LFPI) under both static loads and whole body vibration (WBV). A previously validated finite element (FE) model of the L1-5 lumbar spine was modified to simulate L4-5 fusion. Three different IPDs (Coflex-F, Wallis and DIAM) were inserted at the L3-4 segment of the fusion model to construct the LFPI models. The intact and surgical FE models were analyzed under static loads and WBV, respectively. Under static loading conditions, LFPI decreased range of motion (ROM) and intradiscal pressure (IDP) at the transition segment L3-4 compared with the fusion case. At the segment (L2-3) adjacent to the transition level, LFPI induced higher motion and IDP than rigid fusion. Under WBV, vibration amplitudes of the L3-4 IDP and L4-5 facet joint force (FJF) decreased by more than 54.3% after surgery. The LFPI model with the DIAM system offered the most comparable biomechanics to the intact model under static loads, and decreased the dynamic responses of the L4-5 FJF under WBV. The LFPI model with the Wallis and Coflex-F systems could stabilize the transition segment, and decrease dynamic responses of the L3-4 IDP. The DIAM system may be more suitable in LFPI.

Topping-off technique for stabilization of lumbar degenerative instabilities in 322 patients

OBJECTIVE

Semi-rigid instrumentation (SRI) was introduced to take advantage of the concept of load sharing in surgery for spinal stabilization. The authors investigated a topping-off technique in which interbody fusion is not performed in the uppermost motion segment, thus creating a smooth transition from stabilized to free motion segments. SRI using the topping-off technique also reduces the motion of the adjacent segments, which may reduce the risk of adjacent segment disease (ASD), a frequently observed sequela of instrumentation and fusion, but this technique may also increase the possibility of screw loosening (SL). In the present study the authors aimed to systematically evaluate reoperation rates, clinical outcomes, and potential risk factors and incidences of ASD and SL for this novel approach.

METHODS

The authors collected data for the first 322 patients enrolled at their institution from 2009 to 2015 who underwent surgery performed using the topping-off technique. Reoperation rates, patient satisfaction, and other outcome measures were evaluated. All patients underwent pedicle screw-based semi-rigid stabilization of the lumbar spine with a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rod system.

RESULTS

Implantation of PEEK rods during revision surgery was performed in 59.9% of patients. A median of 3 motion segments (range 1-5 segments) were included and a median of 2 motion segments (range 0-4 segments) were fused. A total of 89.4% of patients underwent fusion, 73.3% by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), 18.4% by anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), 3.1% by extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), 0.3% by oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), and 4.9% by combined approaches in the same surgery. Combined radicular and lumbar pain according to a visual analog scale was reduced from 7.9 ± 1.0 to 4.0 ± 3.1, with 56.2% of patients indicating benefit from surgery. After maximum follow-up (4.3 ± 1.8 years), the reoperation rate was 16.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

The PEEK rod concept including the topping-off principle seems safe, with at least average patient satisfaction in this patient group. Considering the low rate of first-tier surgeries, the presented results seem at least comparable to those of most other series. Follow-up studies are needed to determine long-term outcomes, particularly with respect to ASD, which might be reduced by the presented approach.

Topping-Off Technology versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-Analysis

The treatment effects of topping-off technique were still controversial. This study compared all available data on postoperative clinical and radiographic outcomes of topping-off technique and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane were systematically reviewed. Variations included radiographical adjacent segment disease (RASD), clinical adjacent segment disease (CASD), global lumbar lordosis (GLL), visual analogue scale (VAS) of back (VAS-B) and leg (VAS-L), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), reoperation rates, and complication rates. Sixteen studies, including 1372 cases, were selected for the analysis. Rates of proximal RASD (P=0.0004), distal RASD (P=0.03), postoperative VAS-B (P=0.0001), postoperative VAS-L (P=0.02), EBL (P=0.007), and duration of surgery (P=0.02) were significantly lower in topping-off group than those in PLIF group. Postoperative ODI after 3 years (P=0.04) in the topping-off group was significantly less than that in the PLIF group. There was no significant difference in the rates of CASD (P=0.06), postoperative GLL (P=0.14), postoperative ODI within 3 years (P=0.24), and postoperative JOA (P=0.70) and in reoperation rates (P=0.32) and complication rates (P=0.27) between topping-off group and PLIF. The results confirmed that topping-off technique could effectively prevent ASDs after lumbar internal fixation. However, this effect is effective in preventing RASD. Topping-off technique is more effective in improving the subjective feelings of patients rather than objective motor functions compared with PLIF. With the development of surgical techniques, both topping-off technique and PLIF are safe.

Comparison between topping-off technology and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of chronic low back pain: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The difference between topping-off technique and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in postoperative outcomes is still controversial. The aim of this study is to compare all available data on outcomes of topping-off technique and PLIF in the treatment of chronic low back pain.

METHODS

Articles in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane were reviewed. Parameters included radiographical adjacent segment disease (RASD), clinical adjacent segment disease, range of motion (ROM), global lumbar lordosis (GLL), visual analog scale (VAS), visual analog scale of back, (VAS-B) and visual analog scale leg (VAS-L), Oswestry disability index, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), reoperation rates, complication rates.

RESULTS

Rates of proximal RASD (P = .001) and CASD (P = .03), postoperative VAS-B (P = .0001) were significantly lower in topping-off group than that in PLIF group. There was no significant difference in distal RASD (P = .07), postoperative GLL (P = .71), postoperative upper intervertebral ROM (P = .19), postoperative VAS-L (P = .08), DOI (P = .30), postoperative JOA (P = .18), EBL (P = .21) and duration of surgery (P = .49), reoperation rate (P = .16), complication rates (P = .31) between topping-off group and PLIF.

CONCLUSIONS

Topping-off can effectively prevent the adjacent segment disease from progressing after lumbar internal fixation, which is be more effective in proximal segments. Topping-off technique was more effective in improving subjective feelings of patents rather than objective motor functions. However, no significant difference between topping-off technique and PLIF can be found in the rates of complications.

Application of Finite Element Analysis for Investigation of Intervertebral Disc Degeneration: from Laboratory to Clinic

Due to the ethical concern and inability to detect inner stress distributions of intervertebral disc (IVD), traditional methods for investigation of intervertebral disc degeneration (IVDD) have significant limitations. Many researchers have demonstrated that finite element analysis (FEA) is an effective tool for the research of IVDD. However, the specific application of FEA for investigation of IVDD has not been systematically elucidated before. In the present review, we summarize the current finite element models (FEM) used for the investigation of IVDD, including the poroelastic nonlinear FEM, diffusive-reactive theory model and cell-activity coupled mechano-electrochemical theory model. We further elaborate the use of FEA for the research of IVDD pathogenesis especially for nutrition and biomechanics associated etiology, and the biological, biomechanical and clinical influences of IVDD. In addition, the application of FEA for evaluation and exploration of various treatments for IVDD is also elucidated. We conclude that FEA is an excellent technique for research of IVDD, which could be used to explore the etiology, biology and biomechanics of IVDD. In the future, FEA may help us to achieve the goal of individualized precision therapy.

Reoperation rates and risk factors for revision 4 years after dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The concept of dynamic stabilization (DS) of the lumbar spine for treatment of degenerative instability has been introduced almost two decades ago. Dynamic stabilization follows the principle of controlling movement in the coronal plane by providing load transfer of the spinal segment without fusion and, at the same time, reducing side effects such as adjacent segment disease (ASD). So far, only little is known about revision rates after DS due to ASD and screw loosening (SL).

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to evaluate the longitudinal revision rates following dynamic pedicle screw stabilization in the lumbar spine and to determine specific risk factors predictive for ASD, SL, and overall reoperation in a large cohort with considerable follow-up.

DESIGN

We carried out a post hoc analysis of a prospectively collected database in a level I spine center.

PATIENTS EXAMPLE

The patient sample comprised 283 (151 female/132 male) consecutive patients suffering from painful degenerative lumbar segmental instability with or without spinal stenosis who underwent DS of the lumbar spine (Ulrich Cosmic, Ulrich Medical, Ulm, Germany) between January 2008 and December 2011.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Longitudinal reoperation rate and risk factors predictive for revision surgery were evaluated.

METHODS

We analyzed the longitudinal reoperation rate due to ASD and SL and overall reoperation. Risk factors such as age, gender, body mass index, lumbar lordosis (LL), number of segments, and number of previous surgeries were taken into account. Regular and mixed model logistic regressions were performed to determine risk factors for revision surgery on a patient and on a screw level.

RESULTS

The mean age was 65.7±10.2 years (range 31-88). One hundred thirty-two patients were stabilized in 1 segment, 134 in 2 segments, 15 in 3 segments, and 2 patients in 4 segments. Reoperation rate for ASD and SL after 1 year was 7.4 %, after 2 years was 15.0%, and after a mean follow-up of 51.4±15 months was 22.6%. Reasons for revision were SL in 19 cases (6.6%), ASD in 39 cases (13.7%), SL and ASD in 6 cases, hematoma in 2 cases (0.7%), cerebrospinal fluid fistulae in 3 cases (1.1%), infection in 6 cases (2.1%), and implant failure in 1 case (0.4%). The patients' age, the number of stabilized segments, and the number of previous surgeries and postoperative LL had a significant influence on the probability for revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperation rates after DS of the lumbar spine are comparable with rigid fixations. The younger the patient and the more segments are involved, the lower the LL and the more previous surgeries were found, the higher was the risk of revision. Risk of revision was almost twice as high in men compared with women. We therefore conclude that for clear clinical indication and careful evaluation of preoperative imaging data, DS using the Cosmic system seems to be a possible option. The presented data will help to further tailor indication and patient selection.

Finite element simulation and clinical follow-up of lumbar spine biomechanics with dynamic fixations

Arthrodesis is a recommended treatment in advanced stages of degenerative disc disease. Despite dynamic fixations were designed to prevent abnormal motions with better physiological load transmission, improving lumbar pain and reducing stress on adjacent segments, contradictory results have been obtained. This study was designed to compare differences in the biomechanical behaviour between the healthy lumbar spine and the spine with DYNESYS and DIAM fixation, respectively, at L4-L5 level. Behaviour under flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation are compared using healthy lumbar spine as reference. Three 3D finite element models of lumbar spine (healthy, DYNESYS and DIAM implemented, respectively) were developed, together a clinical follow-up of 58 patients operated on for degenerative disc disease. DYNESYS produced higher variations of motion with a maximum value for lateral bending, decreasing intradiscal pressure and facet joint forces at instrumented level, whereas screw insertion zones concentrated stress. DIAM increased movement during flexion, decreased it in another three movements, and produced stress concentration at the apophyses at instrumented level. Dynamic systems, used as single systems without vertebral fusion, could be a good alternative to degenerative disc disease for grade II and grade III of Pfirrmann.

Removal of fixation construct could mitigate adjacent segment stress after lumbosacral fusion: A finite element analysis

BACKGROUND DATA

Combined usage of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transpedicular fixation has been extensively used to treat the various lumbar degenerative disc diseases. The transpedicular fixator aims to increase stability and enhance the fusion rate. However, how the fused disc and bridged vertebrae respectively affect adjacent-segment diseases progression is not yet clear.

METHODS

Using a validated lumbosacral finite-element model, three variations at the L4-L5 segment were analyzed: 1) moderate disc degeneration, 2) instrumented with a stand-alone cage and pedicle screw fixators, and 3) with the cage only after fusion. The intersegmental angles, disc stresses, and facet loads were examined. Four motion tests, flexion, extension, bending, and twisting, were also simulated.

FINDINGS

The adjacent-segment disease was more severe at the cephalic segment than the caudal segment. After solid fusion and fixation, the increase in intersegmental angles, disc stresses and facet loads of the adjacent segments were about 57.6%, 47.3%, and 59.6%, respectively. However, these changes were reduced to 30.1%, 22.7%, and 27.0% after removal of the fixators. This was attributed to the differences between the biomechanical characteristics of the fusion and fixation mechanisms.

INTERPRETATION

Fixation superimposes a stiffer constraint on the mobility of the bridged segment than fusion. The current study suggested that the removal of spinal fixators after complete fusion could decrease the stress at adjacent segments. Through a minimally invasive procedure, we could reduce secondary damage to the paraspinal structures while removing the fixators, which is of utmost concern to surgeons.

Biomechanical comparison between concentrated, follower, and muscular loads of the lumbar column

Experimental and numerical methods have been extensively used to simulate the lumbar kinematics and mechanics. One of the basic parameters is the lumbar loads. In the literature, both concentrated and distributed loads have been assumed to simulate the in vivo lumbar loads. However, the inconsistent loads between those studies exist and make the comparison of their results controversial. Using finite-element method, this study aimed to numerically compare the effects of the concentrated, follower, and muscular loads on the lumbar biomechanics during flexion. Two conditions of equivalent and simple constraints were simulated. The equivalent condition assumes the identical flexion at the L1 level and loads at the L5 level for the three types of loads. Another condition is to remove such kinematic and mechanical constraints on the lumbar. The comparison indices were flexed profile, distributed stress, and transferred loads of the discs and vertebrae at the different levels. The results showed that the three modes in the equivalent condition show the nearly same flexed profiles. In the simple condition, however, the L1 vertebra of the concentrated mode anteriorly translates about 3 and 5 times that of the follower and muscular mode, respectively. By contrast, the flexion profiles of the follower and muscular are comparable. In the equivalent condition, all modes consistently show the gradually increasing stress and loads toward the caudal levels. The results of both concentrated and muscular modes exhibit the quite comparable trends and even magnitudes. In the simple condition, however, the removal of flexion and load constraints makes the results of the concentrated mode significantly different from its counterparts. In both conditions, the predictedindices of the follower mode are more uniform along the lumbar. In conclusion, the kinematic and mechanical constraints significantly affect the profile, stress, and loads of the three modes. In the equivalent condition, the concentrated mode can simulate the similar results to the muscular mode and top-loading fashion seems to be more practicable for experimental setup. In the simple condition, the follower mode can serve as the alternative to avoid the unreasonably higher flexion at the L1 level and shear at the L5 level. In the future, the detailed studies about the load-related effects on both load-transferring mechanism and failure mode of the lumbar-implant construct should be conducted.

The Effect of Lumbar Lordosis on Screw Loosening in Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization: Four-Year Follow-Up with Computed Tomography

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of Dynesys dynamic stabilization (DDS) on clinical and radiographic outcomes, including spinal pelvic alignment.

METHOD

Consecutive patients who underwent 1- or 2-level DDS for lumbar spondylosis, mild degenerative spondylolisthesis, or degenerative disc disease were included. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by Visual Analogue Scale for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and the Japanese Orthopedic Association scores. Radiographic outcomes were assessed by radiographs and computed tomography. Pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (LL) were also compared.

RESULTS

In 206 patients with an average follow-up of 51.1 ± 20.8 months, there were 87 screws (8.2%) in 42 patients (20.4%) that were loose. All clinical outcomes improved at each time point after operation. Patients with loosened screws were 45 years older. Furthermore, there was a higher risk of screw loosening in DDS involving S1, and these patients were more likely to have loosened screws if the LL failed to increase after the operation.

CONCLUSIONS

The DDS screw loosening rate was overall 8.2% per screw and 20.4% per patient at more than 4 years of follow-up. Older patients, S1 involvement, and those patients who failed to gain LL postoperatively were at higher risk of screw loosening.