Immediate biomechanical effects of lumbar posterior dynamic stabilization above a circumferential fusion

Long-term outcomes of spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a literature review

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is the most common form of spinal deformity in the younger population. The surgical management for these patients improved constantly over the last year and might not be comparable to modern treatment strategies. However, under this aspect the present investigation updates and discusses current evidence regarding the long-term outcome of the surgical management of AIS. All the clinical studies which evaluated the long-term outcomes of spinal fusion were considered. Level of evidence, clinical and radiological data, results of health-related questionnaires and surgery-associated complications during long-term follow-up, e.g., proximal and distal junctional kyphosis (PJK/DJK), and adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), are presented. Data concerning the following patient-reported outcomes measures were collected: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) Outcome Questionnaire, visual analogue scale (VAS), and short form-12 and 36 (SF-12/SF-36). Overall, data from 1115 patients were included. Of them, 324 underwent anterior and 791 posterior spinal fusion. One study focuses on a combined anterior/posterior fusions. The mean follow-up was 22.6 years (posterior fusion: 24.6 years, anterior fusion: 18.31 years). Seven studies focus on the thoracic segments, while 12 focus on the lumbar spine. Data on imaging was reported in 13 studies and those on PROMs in 15 investigations. In conclusion, there is low quality and paucity of long-term data on AIS. However, the long-term results of the implicated studies on AIS patients in this review appear to be satisfactory, although there are limitations in the outcome compared to healthy comparison cohorts. Adjacent degenerations appear to be the most common mechanical complication after long-segment fusions, despite their influence on the outcome remains unclear. With regard to pregnancies, there are slightly increased cesarean section rates, which could be explained by deviations in the sagittal profile.

COMPARISON OF DYNESYS AND HYBRID SYSTEM FOR MULTI-SEGMENTAL LDD

Objective

To compare effectiveness of Dynesys and hybrid system in treating patients with multi-segmental lumbar degenerative disease (LDD).

Methods

Patients involved in this retrospective study were divided into Dynesys (n = 22) and Hybrid (n = 13) groups. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Radiologic evaluations included X-ray, MRI, and CT. Furthermore, different complications were analyzed.

Results

At the last follow-up, ODI and VAS of each group were improved (p < 0.05), and the range of motion (ROM) of operating segments decreased. However, Dynesys group preserved a larger extent of ROM at the final follow-up (p < 0.05). ROM of the upper adjacent segment was increased in both groups (p < 0.05), while the disc heights were decreased at the final follow-up (p < 0.05). Besides, Dynesys group had a more obvious decrease in the disc height of dynamic segments (p < 0.05). No significant difference existed in complications between both groups (p > 0. 05).

Conclusion

In our study, similar satisfactory results were obtained in both groups. Both surgical procedures can be employed as effective treatments for middle-aged and physically active patients with multi-segmental LDD. Level of Evidence III; Retrospective Comparative Study.

Biomechanical Evaluation of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Various Fixation Options for Adjacent Segment Degeneration: A Finite Element Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) is a common phenomenon after lumbar fusion. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) may provide an alternative treatment method for ASD. This study used finite element analysis to evaluate the biomechanical effects of LLIF with various fixation options and identify an optimal surgical strategy for ASD.

METHODS

A validated L1-S1 finite element model was modified for simulation. Six finite element models of the lumbar spine were created and were divided into group 1 (L4-5 posterior lumbar interbody fusion [PLIF] + L3-4 LLIF) and group 2 (L5-S1 PLIF + L4-5 LLIF). Each group consisted of 1) cage-alone, 2) cage + lateral screw fixation (LSF), and 3) cage + bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) models. The range of motion, intradiscal pressure, and facet loads of adjacent segments as well as interbody cage stress were analyzed.

RESULTS

The stress on the LLIF cage-superior endplate interface was highest in the cage-alone model followed by the cage + LSF model and cage + BPSF model. The increase in range of motion, intradiscal pressure, and facet loads at the adjacent segment was highest in the cage + BPSF model followed by the cage + LSF model and cage-alone model. However, the biomechanical effect on the adjacent segment seemed similar in the cage-alone and cage + LSF models.

CONCLUSIONS

LLIF with BPSF is recommended when performing LLIF surgery for ASD after L4-5 and L5-S1 PLIF. Considering cage subsidence and biomechanical effects on the adjacent segment, LLIF with LSF may be a suboptimal option for ASD surgery.

Dynamic Stabilization Surgery in Patients with Spinal Stenosis: Long-term Outcomes and the Future

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to analyze the long-term results for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) treated with dynamic stabilization (DS) and to consider how we can improve the results.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Few studies have reported long-term outcomes of DS surgery for LSS with or without spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

A single-center, single-surgeon consecutive series of LSS patients who underwent DS surgery with at least 5 years of follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Twenty-seven patients were included in the LSS group and 38 patients in the spondylolisthesis group. Patient characteristics, operative data, radiographic parameters, clinical outcomes, and complications were analyzed at baseline and follow-up.

RESULTS

In the LSS group, all radiographic parameters (e.g., disc height, segmental lordosis, segmental range of motion [ROM] at the index level and proximal adjacent level, global lordosis, and global ROM) were maintained well until the last follow-up. In the spondylolisthesis group, global lordosis decreased from 36.5° ± 8.2° to 32.6° ± 6.0° at the last follow-up (P = 0.039), and global ROM decreased from 22.1° ± 6.9° to 18.8° ± 7.1° at the last follow-up (P = 0.012). In both groups, back pain, leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index scores showed significant and sustained improvements. Screw loosening occurred in three patients (11.1%) in the LSS group and five patients (13.2%) in the spondylolisthesis group. Symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) occurred in two patients (7.4%) in the LSS group and three patients (7.9%) in the spondylolisthesis group.

CONCLUSION

Decompression and DS surgery for LSS with or without spondylolisthesis showed favorable long-term surgical outcomes with an acceptable rate of complications and ASD. However, an improved physiological DS system should be developed.Level of Evidence: 4.

A comprehensive approach for the validation of lumbar spine finite element models investigating post-fusion adjacent segment effects

Spinal fusion surgery is usually followed by accelerated degenerative changes in the unfused segments above and below the treated segment(s), i.e., adjacent segment disease (ASD). While a number of risk factors for ASD have been suggested, its exact pathogenesis remains to be identified. Finite element (FE) models are indispensable tools to investigate mechanical effects of fusion surgeries on post-fusion changes in the adjacent segment kinematics and kinetics. Existing modeling studies validate only their intact FE model against in vitro data and subsequently simulate post-fusion in vivo conditions. The present study provides a novel approach for the comprehensive validation of a lumbar (T12-S1) FE model in post-fusion conditions. Sixteen simulated fusion surgeries, performed on cadaveric specimens using various testing and loading conditions, were modeled by this FE model. Predictions for adjacent segment range of motion (RoM) and intradiscal pressure (IDP) were compared with those obtained from the corresponding in vitro tests. Overall, 70% of the predicted adjacent segment RoMs were within the range of in vitro data for both intact and post-fusion conditions. Correlation (r) values between model and in vitro findings for the adjacent segment RoMs were positive and greater than 0.84. Most of the predicted IDPs were, however, out of the narrow range of in vitro IDPs at the adjacent segments but with great positive correlations (r ≥ 0.89). FE modeling studies investigating the effect of fusion surgery on in vivo adjacent segment biomechanics are encouraged to use post-surgery in vitro data to validate their FE model.

Finite element modelling of hybrid stabilization systems for the human lumbar spine

Intersomatic fusion is a very popular treatment for spinal diseases associated with intervertebral disc degeneration. The effects of three different hybrid stabilization systems on both range of motion and intradiscal pressure were investigated, as there is no consensus in the literature about the efficiency of these systems. Finite element simulations were designed to predict the variations of range of motion and intradiscal pressure from intact to implanted situations. After hybrid stabilization system implantation, L4-L5 level did not lose its motion completely, while L5-S1 had no mobility as a consequence of disc removal and fusion process. BalanC hybrid stabilization system represented higher mobility at the index level, reduced intradiscal pressure of adjacent level, but caused to increment in range of motion by 20% under axial rotation. Higher tendency by 93% to the failure was also detected under axial rotation. Dynesys hybrid stabilization system represented more restricted motion than BalanC, and negligible effects to the adjacent level. B-DYN hybrid stabilization system was the most rigid one among all three systems. It reduced intradiscal pressure and range of motion at the adjacent level except from motion under axial rotation being increased by 13%. Fracture risk of B-DYN and Dynesys Transition Optima components was low when compared with BalanC. Mobility of the adjacent level around axial direction should be taken into account in case of implantation with BalanC and B-DYN systems, as well as on the development of new designs. Having these findings in mind, it is clear that hybrid systems need to be further tested, both clinically and numerically, before being considered for common use.

Biomechanical testing of a polycarbonate-urethane-based dynamic instrumentation system under physiological conditions

BACKGROUND

Posterior dynamic stabilization systems are developed to maintain the healthy biomechanics of the spine while providing stabilization. Numerous dynamic systems incorporate polycarbonate urethane with temperature- and moisture-dependent material properties. In the underlying study, a novel test rig is used to evaluate the biomechanical performance of a system containing polycarbonate urethane.

METHODS

The test rig is composed of two hydraulic actuators. An environmental chamber, filled with water vapor at body temperature, is included in the set up. The translational and rotational degrees of freedom of vertebrae and pedicle screws are measured using a magnetic tracking system. The Transition® device is tested in five lumbar spines (L2-L5) of human cadavers. Pure moment tests are performed for flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Three test conditions are compared: 1. native specimens, 2. dynamic instrumentation at L4-L5, 3. dynamic instrumentation with decompression at L4-L5.

FINDINGS

The ranges of motion, the centers of rotation, and the pedicle screw loosening are calculated and evaluated. During daily motions such as walking, the loads on the lumbar spine differ from the standardized test protocols. To allow a reproducible data evaluation for smaller deformations, all moment-rotation curves are parameterized using sigmoid functions.

INTERPRETATION

In flexion-extension, the Transition® device provides the highest stiffening of the segment and the largest shift of the center of rotation. No shift in the center of rotation, and the smallest supporting effect on the segment is observed for axial rotation. In lateral bending, a mediate reduction of the range of motion is observed.

Clinical experiences with a PEEK-based dynamic instrumentation device in lumbar spinal surgery: 2 years and no more

Background

Dynamic spine implants were developed to prevent adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) and adjacent segment disease (ASDi). Purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical and radiological outcomes of “topping off” devices following lumbar spinal fusion procedure using a PEEK-based dynamic rod system. Moreover, this study focused on the hypothesis that “topping off” devices can prevent ASD.

Methods

This prospective nonrandomized study included patients with indication for single-level lumbar fusion and radiological signs of ASD without instability. The exclusion criteria were previous lumbar spine surgery and no sign of disc degeneration in the adjacent segment according to magnetic resonance imaging. All patients were treated with single-level lumbar interbody fusion and dynamic stabilization of the cranial adjacent segment. Patients underwent a clinical examination and radiographs preoperatively and at 1 and 2 years after surgery. Analyses were performed on clinical data collected with the German Spine Registry using the core outcome measure index (COMI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain.

Results

A total of 22 patients (6 male and 16 female) with an average age of 57.6 years were included in the study; 20 patients completed the follow-up (FU). The average COMI score was 9.0 preoperatively, 4.2 at the 1-year FU, and 4.7 at the 2-year FU. The average preoperative VAS scores for back and leg pain were 7.7 and 7.1, respectively. At the 1-year FU, the scores were 4.25 for back pain and 2.2 for leg pain, and at the 2-year FU, the scores were 4.7 for back pain and 2.3 for leg pain. At FU, failure of the dynamic topping off implant material was verified in four cases, and ASD of the segment cranial to the topping off was confirmed in three cases.

Conclusions

These results demonstrate significant improvements in clinical outcomes and pain reduction after lumbar spinal fusion with topping off at 2 years after surgery. However, the implant failed due to the high rate of implant failure and the development of ASD in the segment cranial to the dynamic stabilized segment.

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.

Biomechanical Effects of a Dynamic Topping off Instrumentation in a Long Rigid Pedicle Screw Construct

STUDY DESIGN

Biomechanical ex vivo study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if topping off instrumentation can reduce the hypermobility in the adjacent segments when compared with the classic rigid spinal instrumentation.

SUMMARY OF THE BACKGROUND DATA

Long rigid instrumentation might increase the mechanical load in the adjacent segments, the resulting hypermobility, and the risk for adjacent segment disease. Topping off instrumentation intends to reduce the hypermobility at the adjacent level by more evenly distributing segmental motion and, thereby, potentially mitigating adjacent level disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight human spines (Th12-L5) were divided into 2 groups. In the rigid group, a 3-segment metal rod instrumentation (L2-L5) was performed. The hybrid group included a 2-segment metal rod instrumentation (L3-L5) with a dynamic topping off instrumentation (L2-L3). Each specimen was tested consecutively in 3 different configurations: native (N=8), 2-segment rod instrumentation (L3-L5, N=8), 3-segment instrumentation (rigid: N=4, hybrid: N=4). For each configuration the range of motion (ROM) of the whole spine and each level was measured by a motion capture system during 5 cycles of extension-flexion (angle controlled to ±5 degrees, 0.1 Hz frequency, no preload).

RESULTS

In comparison with the intact spine, both the rigid 3-segment instrumentation and the hybrid instrumentation significantly reduced the ROM in the instrumented segments (L2-L5) while increasing the movement in the adjacent segment L1-L2 (P=0.002, η=0.82) and in Th12-L1 (P<0.001, η=0.90). There were no ROM differences between the rigid and hybrid instrumentation in all segments.

CONCLUSIONS

Introducing the dynamic topping off did not impart any significant difference in the segmental motion when compared with the rigid instrumentation. Therefore, the current biomechanical study could not show a benefit of using this specific topping off instrumentation to solve the problem of adjacent segment disease.

Biomechanical testing of a PEEK-based dynamic instrumentation device in a lumbar spine model

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to investigate the range-of-motion after posterior polyetheretherketone-based rod stabilisation combined with a dynamic silicone hinge in order to compare it with titanium rigid stabilisation.

METHODS

Five human cadaveric lumbar spines with four vertebra each (L2 to L5) were tested in a temperature adjustable spine-testing set-up in four trials: (1) native measurement; (2) kinematics after rigid monosegmental titanium rod instrumentation with anterior intervertebral bracing of the segment L4/5; (3) kinematics after hybrid posterior polyetheretherketone rod instrumentation combined with a silicone hinge within the adjacent level (L3/4) and (4) kinematics after additional decompression with laminectomy of L4 and bilateral resection of the inferior articular processes (L3). During all steps, the specimens were loaded quasi-statically with 1°/s with pure moment up to 7.5Nm in flexion/extension, lateral bending and axial rotation.

FINDINGS

In comparison to the native cadaveric spine, both the titanium device and polyetheretherketone-based device reduce the range-of-motion within the level L4/5 significantly (flexion/extension: reduction of 77%, p<0.001; lateral bending: reduction of 62%, p<0.001; axial rotation: reduction of 71%, p<0.001). There was a clear stabilisation effect after hybrid-instrumentation within the level L3/4, especially in flexion/extension (64%, p<0.001) and lateral bending (62%, p<0.001) but without any effect on the axial rotation. Any temperature dependency has not been observed.

INTERPRETATION

Surprisingly, the hybrid device compensates for laminectomy L4 and destabilising procedure within the level L3/4 in comparison to other implants. Further studies must be performed to show its effectiveness regarding the adjacent segment instability.

Posterior lumbar dynamic stabilization instead of arthrodesis for symptomatic adjacent-segment degenerative stenosis: description of a novel technique

OBJECTIVE The development of symptomatic adjacent-segment disease (ASD) is a well-recognized consequence of lumbar fusion surgery. Extension of a fusion to a diseased segment may only lead to subsequent adjacent-segment degeneration. The authors report the use of a novel technique that uses dynamic stabilization instead of arthrodesis for the surgical treatment of symptomatic ASD following a prior lumbar instrumented fusion. METHODS A cohort of 28 consecutive patients was evaluated who developed symptomatic stenosis immediately adjacent to a previous lumbar instrumented fusion. All patients had symptoms of neurogenic claudication refractory to nonsurgical treatment and were surgically treated with decompression and dynamic stabilization instead of extending the fusion construct using a posterior lumbar dynamic stabilization system. Preoperative symptoms, visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, and perioperative complications were recorded. Clinical outcome was gauged by comparing VAS scores prior to surgery and at the time of last follow-up. RESULTS The mean follow-up duration was 52 months (range 17-94 months). The mean interval from the time of primary fusion surgery to the dynamic stabilization surgery was 40 months (range 10-96 months). The mean patient age was 51 years (range 29-76 years). There were 19 (68%) men and 9 (32%) women. Twenty-three patients (82%) presented with low-back pain at time of surgery, whereas 24 patients (86%) presented with lower-extremity symptoms only. Twenty-four patients (86%) underwent operations that were performed using single-level dynamic stabilization, 3 patients (11%) were treated at 2 levels, and 1 patient underwent 3-level decompression and dynamic stabilization. The most commonly affected and treated level (46%) was L3-4. The mean preoperative VAS pain score was 8, whereas the mean postoperative score was 3. No patient required surgery for symptomatic degeneration rostral to the level of dynamic stabilization during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS The use of posterior lumbar dynamic stabilization may offer a valid and safe option for the management of patients who develop ASD rostral to a previously instrumented arthrodesis. The technique may serve as an alternative to multilevel arthrodesis in this patient population. By implanting a dynamic stabilization device instead of an extension of a rigid construct, this might translate into a reduction in the development of yet another level of ASD.

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

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.

In Vitro Comparison of Dynesys, PEEK, and Titanium Constructs in the Lumbar Spine

Introduction. Pedicle based posterior dynamic stabilization systems aim to stabilize the pathologic spine while also allowing sufficient motion to mitigate adjacent level effects. Two flexible constructs that have been proposed to act in such a manner, the Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization System and PEEK rod, have yet to be directly compared in vitro to a rigid Titanium rod. Methods. Human lumbar specimens were tested in flexion extension, lateral bending, and axial torsion to evaluate the following conditions at L4-L5: Intact, Dynesys, PEEK rod, Titanium rod, and Destabilized. Intervertebral range of motion, interpedicular travel, and interpedicular displacement metrics were evaluated from 3rd-cycle data using an optoelectric tracking system. Results. Statistically significant decreases in ROM compared to Intact and Destabilized conditions were detected for the instrumented conditions during flexion extension and lateral bending. AT ROM was significantly less than Destabilized but not the Intact condition. Similar trends were found for interpedicular displacement in all modes of loading; however, interpedicular travel trends were less consistent. More importantly, no metrics under any mode of loading revealed significant differences between Dynesys, PEEK, and Titanium. Conclusion. The results of this study support previous findings that Dynesys and PEEK constructs behave similarly to a Titanium rod in vitro.

Biomechanical evaluation of a new pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilization device (Awesome Rod System)--a finite element analysis

Background

Pedicle-screw-based posterior dynamic stabilization devices are designed to alleviate the rate of accelerated degeneration of the vertebral level adjacent to the level of spinal fusion. A new pedicle- screw-based posterior dynamic stabilization device- the Awesome Dynamic Rod System was designed with curve cuts on the rods to provide flexibility. The current study was conducted to evaluate the biomechanical properties of this new device.

Methods

Finite element models were developed for the intact spine (INT), the Awesome Dynamic Rod Implanted at L4-L5 (AWE), a traditional rigid rod system implanted at L4-L5 along with an interbody cage (FUS), and the Awesome Dynamic Rod System implanted at L4-L5 along with an interbody cage as an adjunct to fusion procedures and extension of dynamic fixation to L3-L4 (AWEFUS). The models were subjected to axial loads and pure moments and evaluated by a hybrid method on range of motion (ROM)s, disc stresses, pedicle screws stresses, and facet joint contact forces.

Results

FUS sustained the lowest L4-L5 ROM decrement in flexion and torsion. AWE demonstrated the lowest adjacent level ROM increment in all moments except for extension at L3-L4, and AWEFUS showed the greatest ROM increment at L2-L3. AWE demonstrated lowest adjacent segment disc stress in flexion, lateral bending and torsion at L3-L4. AWEFUS showed the highest disc stress increment in flexion, extension, and lateral bending, and the lowest disc stress decrement in torsion at L2-L3. AWE sustained greater adjacent facet joint contact forces than did FUS in extension and lateral bending at L3-L4, and AWEFUS demonstrated the greatest contact forces concentrating at L2-L3.

Conclusion

The results demonstrate that the Awesome Dynamic Rod System preserved more bridged segment motion than did the traditional rigid rod fixation system except in extension. However, the Awesome Dynamic Rod System bore a greater facet joint contact force in extension. The Awesome Dynamic Rod System did protect the adjacent level of fusion segments, but led to much greater ROM, disc stresses, and facet joint contact forces increasing at the adjacent level of instrumented segments.

Characterization of the behavior of a novel low-stiffness posterior spinal implant under anterior shear loading on a degenerative spinal model

PURPOSE

Dynamic implants have been developed to address potential adjacent level effects due to rigid instrumentation. Rates of revision surgeries may be reduced by using improved implants in the primary surgery. Prior to clinical use, implants should be rigorously tested ex vivo. The objective of our study was to characterize the load-sharing and kinematic behavior of a novel low-stiffness spinal implant.

METHODS

A human cadaveric model of degenerative spondylolisthesis was tested in shear. Lumbar functional spinal units (N = 15) were tested under a static 300 N axial compression force and a cyclic anterior shear force (5-250 N). Translation was tracked with a motion capture system. A novel implant was compared to three standard implants with shear stiffness ranging from low to high. All implants were instrumented with strain gauges to measure the supported shear force. Each implant was affixed to each specimen, and the specimens were tested intact and in two progressively destabilized states.

RESULTS

Specimen condition and implant type affected implant load-sharing and specimen translation (p < 0.0001). Implant load-sharing increased across all degeneration-simulating specimen conditions and decreased across the three standard implants (high- to low-stiffness). Translation increased with the three standard implants (trend). The novel implant behaved similarly to the medium-stiffness implant (p > 0.2).

CONCLUSIONS

The novel implant behaved similarly to the medium-stiffness implant in both load-sharing and translation despite having a different design and stiffness. Complex implant design and specimen-implant interaction necessitate pre-clinical testing of novel implants. Further in vitro testing in axial rotation and flexion-extension is recommended as they are highly relevant loading directions for non-rigid implants.

Biomechanical and anatomical considerations in lumbar spinous process fixation--an in vitro human cadaveric model

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Although multiple mechanisms of device attachment to the spinous processes exist, there is a paucity of data regarding lumbar spinous process morphology and peak failure loads.

PURPOSE

Using an in vitro human cadaveric spine model, the primary objective of the present study was to compare the peak load and mechanisms of lumbar spinous process failure with variation in spinous process hole location and pullout direction. A secondary objective was to provide an in-depth characterization of spinous process morphology.

STUDY DESIGN

Biomechanical and anatomical considerations in lumbar spinous process fixation using an in vitro human cadaveric model.

METHODS

A total of 12 intact lumbar spines were used in the current investigation. The vertebral segments (L1-L5) were randomly assigned to one of five treatment groups with variation in spinous process hole placement and pullout direction: (1) central hole placement with superior pullout (n=10), (2) central hole placement with inferior pullout (n=10), (3) inferior hole placement with inferior pullout (n=10), (4) superior hole placement with superior pullout (n=10), and (5) intact spinous process with superior pullout (n=14). A 4-mm diameter pin was placed through the hole followed by pullout testing using a material testing system. As well, the bone mineral density (BMD) (g/cm(3)) was measured for each segment. Data were quantified in terms of anatomical dimensions (mm), peak failure loads (newtons [N]), and fracture mechanisms, with linear regression analysis to identify relationships between anatomical and biomechanical data.

RESULTS

Based on anatomical comparisons, there were significant differences between the anteroposterior and cephalocaudal dimensions of the L5 spinous process versus L1-L4 (p<.05). Statistical analysis of peak load at failure of the four reconstruction treatments and intact condition demonstrated no significant differences between treatments (range, 350-500 N) (p>.05). However, a significant linear correlation was observed between peak failure load and anteroposterior and cephalocaudal dimensions (p<.05). Correlation between BMD and peak spinous processes failure load was approaching statistical significance (p=.08). 30 of 54 specimens failed via direct pullout (plow through), whereas 8 of 54 specimens demonstrated spinous process fracture. The remaining cases failed via plow through followed by fracture of the spinous process (16 of 54; 29%).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated that variation in spinous process hole placement did not significantly influence failure load. However, there was a strong linear correlation between peak failure load and the anteroposterior and cephalocaudal anatomical dimensions. From a clinical standpoint, the findings of the present study indicate that attachment through the spinous process provides a viable alternative to attachment around the spinous processes. In addition, the anatomical dimensions of the lumbar spinous processes have a greater influence on biomechanical fixation than either hole location or BMD.

Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel Autogenous Bone Interbody Fusion Cage for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in a Cadaveric Model

STUDY DESIGN

A human cadaveric biomechanical study of a novel, prefabricated autogenous bone interbody fusion (ABIF) cage.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the biomechanical properties of the ABIF cage in a single-level construct with and without transpedicular screw and rod fixation.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

In current practice, posterior lumbar interbody fusion is generally carried out using synthetic interbody spacers or corticocancellous iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) in combination with posterior instrumentation. However, questions remain concerning the use of synthetic intervertebral implants as well as the morbidity ICBG harvesting. Therefore, ABIF cage has been developed to obviate some of the challenges in conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion instrumentation and to facilitate the fusion process.

METHODS

Eighteen adult cadaveric lumbosacral (L3-S1) specimens were tested. Test conditions included single lumbosacral segments across (1) intact, (2) decompressed, (3) intervertebral cage alone, and (4) intervertebral cage with bilateral transpedicular fixation. Range of motion (ROM), neutral zone (NZ), and axial failure load were tested for each condition.

RESULTS

The ICBG, polyetheretherketone cage, or ABIF cage alone exhibited a significantly lower (P < 0.05) ROM and NZ than the decompressed spine. In comparison with the intact spine, all 3 test conditions without supplemental fixation were able to decrease ROM and NZ to near intact levels. When stabilized with pedicle screws, the ROM was significantly less and the NZ was significantly lower (P < 0.05) for each group both compared with the intact spine. In axial compression testing, the failure load of polyetheretherketone cage was the highest, with no significant difference between the ICBG and the ABIF cage.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that the novel ABIF cage can bear the physiological intervertebral peak load, similar to ICBG. When combined with pedicle screw and rod fixation, it exhibits similar biomechanical properties as the polyetheretherketone cage plus posterior instrumentation. Based on the biomechanical properties of ABIF cage, the prospect of these cages in clinical practice is expected.

Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of artificial total disc replacement (TDR) with fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). Spinal fusion is the conventional surgical treatment for lumbar DDD. Recently, TDR has been developed to avoid the negative effects of the fusion by preserving function of the motion segment. Controversy still surrounds regarding whether TDR is better.

METHODS

We systematically searched six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Clinical, Ovid, BIOSIS and Cochrane registry of controlled clinical trials) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to March 2013 in which TDR was compared with the fusion for the treatment of lumbar DDD. Effective data were extracted after the assessment of methodological quality of the trials. Then, we performed the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Seven relevant RCTs with a total of 1,584 patients were included. TDR was more effective in ODI (MD -5.09; 95% CI [-7.33, -2.84]; P < 0.00001), VAS score (MD -5.31; 95% CI [-8.35, -2.28]; P = 0.0006), shorter duration of hospitalization (MD -0.82; 95% CI [-1.38, -0.26]; P = 0.004) and a greater proportion of willing to choose the same operation again (OR 2.32; 95% CI [1.69, 3.20]; P < 0.00001). There were no significant differences between the two treatment methods regarding operating time (MD -44.16; 95% CI [-94.84, 6.52]; P = 0.09), blood loss (MD -29.14; 95% CI [-173.22, 114.94]; P = 0.69), complications (OR 0.72; 95% CI [0.45, 1.14]; P = 0.16), reoperation rate (OR 0.83; 95% CI [0.39, 1.77]; P = 0.63) and the proportion of patients who returned to full-time/part-time work (OR 1.10; 95% CI [0.86, 1.41]; P = 0.47).

CONCLUSION

TDR showed significant safety and efficacy comparable to lumbar fusion at 2 year follow-up. TDR demonstrated superiorities in improved physical function, reduced pain and shortened duration of hospitalization. The benefits of operating time, blood loss, motion preservation and the long-term complications are still unable to be proved.

Pedicle-Based Non-fusion Stabilization Devices: A Critical Review and Appraisal of Current Evidence

Over the last decades, spinal fusion has become one of the most important principles in surgical treatment of spinal pathologies. Despite the undoubted benefits of fusion surgery, there are several drawbacks associated with this technique, including adjacent segment degeneration and pseudoarthrosis. Based on biomechanical data, dynamic stabilization of the spine is intended to ameliorate adjacent level degeneration by stabilizing vertebral motion in defined planes and mimicking natural spine movements.In this paper, we review the literature and discuss past and present pedicle-based non-fusion dynamic stabilization devices. Although there is a paucity of high-quality prospective trials, studies have indicated both promising and disappointing results. In comparison to 360° fusion surgery, the perioperative risk seems to be lower. Other complications like screw loosening, however, have been reported with various systems, while a reduction of adjacent segment disease has not yet been demonstrated. The necessary degree of restabilization to achieve pain-free motion seems to vary greatly between patients and current systems are far from perfection. If these problems can be solved, dynamic stabilization may nevertheless be an important option of spinal surgery in the future.

In vitro biomechanical study to quantify range of motion, intradiscal pressure, and facet force of 3-level dynamic stabilization constructs with decreased stiffness

STUDY DESIGN

An in vitro biomechanical study.

OBJECTIVE

To perform in vitro biomechanical testing on a lumbar spine using a 6-degree-of-freedom machine. To compare the range of motion (ROM), intradiscal pressure, and facet force of different 3-level dynamic stabilization constructs with traditional rigid constructs. To determine the effect of decreasing the stiffness of the dynamic construct on the various parameters.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Dynamic stabilization systems are a surgical option that may minimize the development of adjacent segment disease.

METHODS

Seven T12-S1 specimens were tested at ± 7.5 Nm in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. The testing sequence was (1) intact, (2) intact with facet sensors, (3) L3-S1 rigid (3R), (4) L3-L4 dynamic and L4-S1 rigid (1D-2R A), (5) L3-L5 dynamic and L5-S1 rigid (2D-1R A), and (6) L3-S1 dynamic (3D A). Constructs 1D-2R A, 2D-1R A, and 3D A were tested again with the specialized designs of B and C of decreased stiffness. ROM, intradiscal pressure, and facet force were measured.

RESULTS

In all loading modes there was a trend of increasing motion with decreased stiffness. Significant differences were seen with more dynamic stabilization levels but no significance was seen with only decreasing the stiffness. 3R facet force at the caudal instrumented level significantly decreased compared with intact and dynamic stabilization constructs during axial rotation.

CONCLUSION

Biomechanical testing resulted in a trend of increased ROM across instrumented levels as the stiffness was decreased. Dynamic stabilization increased the ROM across instrumented levels compared with rigid rods. These results suggest that decreasing the stiffness of the construct may lessen the probability of adjacent-level disease. Although the specialized devices are not commercially available, clinical data would be necessary for a clearer understanding of adjacent level effects and to confirm the in vitro biomechanical findings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.

Biomechanics of Dynamic Rod Segments for Achieving Transitional Stiffness With Lumbosacral Fusion

BACKGROUND:

Transitioning from rigid to flexible hardware at the distal rostral or caudal lumbar or lumbosacral level hypothetically maintains motion at the transition level and protects the transition level and intact adjacent levels from stresses caused by fusion.

OBJECTIVE:

To biomechanically compare transitional and rigid constructs with uninstrumented specimens in vitro.

METHODS:

Human cadaveric L2-S1 segments were tested (1) intact, (2) after L5-S1 rigid pedicle screw-rod fixation, (3) after L4-S1 rigid pedicle screw-rod fixation, and (4) after hybrid fixation rigidly spanning L5-S1 and dynamically spanning L4-L5. Pure moments (maximum 7.5 Nm) induced flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation while motion was recorded optoelectronically. Additionally, specimens were studied in flexion/extension with a 400-N compressive follower load. Strain gauges on laminae were used to extract facet loads.

RESULTS:

The range of motion at the transition segment (L4-L5) for the hybrid construct was significantly less than for the intact condition and significantly greater than for the rigid 2-level construct during lateral bending and axial rotation but not during flexion or extension. Sagittal axis of rotation at L4-L5 shifted significantly after rigid 2-level or hybrid fixation (P &lt; .003) but shifted significantly farther posterior and rostral with rigid fixation (P &lt; .02). Instrumentation altered L4-L5 facet load at more than the L3-L4 facet load.

CONCLUSION:

The effect of the dynamic rod segment on the kinematics of the transition level was less pronounced than that of a fully rigid construct in vitro with this particular rod system. This experimental model detected no biomechanical alterations at adjacent intact levels with hybrid or rigid systems.

Does semi-rigid instrumentation using both flexion and extension dampening spacers truly provide an intermediate level of stabilization?

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.

Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar dynamic stabilization using pedicle screws and a nitinol spring rod system with 2-year minimum follow-up

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective study evaluating the adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar dynamic stabilization using pedicle screws and a Nitinol spring rod system.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the changes of the adjacent and implantation segments after lumbar dynamic stabilization surgery using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lumbar fusion operations can accelerate the degeneration of adjacent levels. Recently, motion preservation surgery has been attempted for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases to prevent degeneration of adjacent levels. However, there is a controversy over whether lumbar dynamic stabilization accelerates degeneration of adjacent levels.

METHODS

We performed the dynamic stabilization procedure in patients with grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, lumbar spondylotic stenosis with segmental instability, or a herniated lumbar disc with segmental instability. Postoperative MRI scans were taken for >2 years in all enrolled 25 patients. We compared the findings regarding disc degeneration in the cranial, implantation, and caudal segments between the preoperative period and 2-year-plus postoperative period using T2-weighted sagittal MR images. In addition, we investigated the progression of the central and foraminal stenosis of the adjacent cranial and caudal levels.

RESULTS

Three of the 25 cranial adjacent discs (12.0%) and 4 of the 25 (16%) caudal adjacent discs demonstrated progression of degeneration after dynamic stabilization. One of the 13 discs in the implantation segment demonstrated progression of degeneration, and 2 of the 13 discs in the implantation segment showed improvement of their disc degeneration (disc rehydration). A total of 5 (10.0%) of the 50 segments (3 cranial and 2 caudal adjacent) showed increased spinal stenosis postoperatively. Among the 5 cases, 3 patients had symptomatic adjacent stenosis.

CONCLUSION

According to our results, lumbar dynamic stabilization using pedicle screws and a Nitinol spring rod system may not prevent adjacent level degeneration completely.

The biomechanics of a multilevel lumbar spine hybrid using nucleus replacement in conjunction with fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Degenerative disc disease is commonly a multilevel pathology with varying deterioration severity. The use of fusion on multiple levels can significantly affect functionality and has been linked to persistent adjacent disc degeneration. A hybrid approach of fusion and nucleus replacement (NR) has been suggested as a solution for mildly degenerated yet painful levels adjacent to fusion.

PURPOSE

To compare the biomechanical metrics of different hybrid implant constructs, hypothesizing that an NR+fusion hybrid would be similar to a single-level fusion and perform more naturally compared with a two-level fusion.

STUDY DESIGN

A cadaveric in vitro repeated-measures study was performed to evaluate a multilevel lumbar NR+fusion hybrid.

METHODS

Eight cadaveric spines (L3-S1) were tested in a Spine Kinetic Simulator (Instron, Norwood, MA, USA). Pure moments of 8 Nm were applied in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation as well as compression loading. Specimens were tested intact; fused (using transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion instrumentation with posterior rods) at L5-S1; with a nuclectomy at L4-L5 including fusion at L5-S1; with NR at L4-L5 including fusion at L5-S1; and finally with a two-level fusion spanning L4-S1. Repeated-measures analysis of variance and corrected t tests were used to statistically compare outcomes.

RESULTS

The NR+fusion hybrid and single-level fusion exhibited no statistical differences for range of motion (ROM), stiffness, neutral zone, and intradiscal pressure in all loading directions. Compared with two-level fusion, the hybrid affords the construct 41.9% more ROM on average. Two-level fusion stiffness was statistically higher than all other constructs and resulted in significantly lower ROM in flexion, extension, and lateral bending. The hybrid construct produced approximately half of the L3-L4 adjacent-level pressures as the two-level fusion case while generating similar pressures to the single-level fusion case.

CONCLUSIONS

These data portend more natural functional outcomes and fewer adjacent disc complications for a multilevel NR+fusion hybrid compared with the classical two-level fusion.

Comparison of the biomechanical effect of pedicle-based dynamic stabilization: a study using finite element analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Recently, nonfusion pedicle-based dynamic stabilization systems (PBDSs) have been developed and used in the management of degenerative lumbar spinal diseases. Still effects on spinal kinematics and clinical effects are controversial. Little biomechanical information exists for providing biomechanical characteristics of pedicle-based dynamic stabilization according to the PBDS design before clinical implementation.

PURPOSE

To investigate the effects of implanting PBDSs into the spinal functional unit and elucidate the differences in biomechanical characteristics according to different materials and design.

STUDY DESIGN

The biomechanical effects of implantation of PBDS were investigated using the nonlinear three-dimensional finite element model of L4-L5.

METHODS

An already validated three-dimensional, intact osteoligamentous L4-L5 finite element model was modified to incorporate the insertion of pedicle screws. The implanted models were constructed after modifying the intact model to simulate postoperative changes using four different fixation systems. Four models instrumented with PBDS (Dynesys, NFlex, and polyetheretherketone [PEEK]) and rigid fixation systems (conventional titanium rod) were developed for comparison. The instrumented models were compared with those of the intact and rigid fixation model. Range of motion (ROM) in three motion planes, center of rotation (COR), force on the facet joint, and von Mises stress distribution on the vertebral body and implants with flexion-extension were compared among the models.

RESULTS

Simulated results demonstrated that implanted segments with PBDSs have limited ROM when compared with the intact spine. Flexion motion was the most limited, and axial rotation was the least limited, after device implantation. Among the PBDS selected in this analysis, the NFlex system had the closest instantaneous COR compared with the intact model and a higher ROM compared with other PBDS. Contact force on the facet joint in extension increased with an increase of moment in Dynesys and NFlex; however, the rigid or PEEK rod fixation revealed no facet contact force.

CONCLUSIONS

Implanted segments with PBDSs have limited ROM when compared with the intact spine. Center of rotation and stress distribution differed according to the design and materials used. These biomechanical effects produced a nonphysiological stress on the functional spinal unit when they were implanted. The biomechanical effects of current PBDSs should be carefully considered before clinical implementation.

A short history of posterior dynamic stabilization

Interspinous spacers were developed to treat local deformities such as degenerative spondylolisthesis. To treat patients with chronic instability, posterior pedicle fixation and rod-based dynamic stabilization systems were developed as alternatives to fusion surgeries. Dynamic stabilization is the future of spinal surgery, and in the near future, we will be able to see the development of new devices and surgical techniques to stabilize the spine. It is important to follow the development of these technologies and to gain experience using them. In this paper, we review the literature and discuss the dynamic systems, both past and present, used in the market to treat lumbar degeneration.

Hybrid dynamic stabilization: a biomechanical assessment of adjacent and supraadjacent levels of the lumbar spine

OBJECT

The object of this study was to evaluate the effect of hybrid dynamic stabilization on adjacent levels of the lumbar spine.

METHODS

Seven human spine specimens from T-12 to the sacrum were used. The following conditions were implemented: 1) intact spine; 2) fusion of L4-5 with bilateral pedicle screws and titanium rods; and 3) supplementation of the L4-5 fusion with pedicle screw dynamic stabilization constructs at L3-4, with the purpose of protecting the L3-4 level from excessive range of motion (ROM) and to create a smoother motion transition to the rest of the lumbar spine. An industrial robot was used to apply continuous pure moment (± 2 Nm) in flexion-extension with and without a follower load, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Intersegmental rotations of the fused, dynamically stabilized, and adjacent levels were measured and compared.

RESULTS

In flexion-extension only, the rigid instrumentation at L4-5 caused a 78% decrease in the segment's ROM when compared with the intact specimen. To compensate, it caused an increase in motion at adjacent levels L1-2 (45.6%) and L2-3 (23.2%) only. The placement of the dynamic construct at L3-4 decreased the operated level's ROM by 80.4% (similar stability as the fusion at L4-5), when compared with the intact specimen, and caused a significant increase in motion at all tested adjacent levels. In flexion-extension with a follower load, instrumentation at L4-5 affected only a subadjacent level, L5-sacrum (52.0%), while causing a reduction in motion at the operated level (L4-5, -76.4%). The dynamic construct caused a significant increase in motion at the adjacent levels T12-L1 (44.9%), L1-2 (57.3%), and L5-sacrum (83.9%), while motion at the operated level (L3-4) was reduced by 76.7%. In lateral bending, instrumentation at L4-5 increased motion at only T12-L1 (22.8%). The dynamic construct at L3-4 caused an increase in motion at T12-L1 (69.9%), L1-2 (59.4%), L2-3 (44.7%), and L5-sacrum (43.7%). In axial rotation, only the placement of the dynamic construct at L3-4 caused a significant increase in motion of the adjacent levels L2-3 (25.1%) and L5-sacrum (31.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The dynamic stabilization system displayed stability characteristics similar to a solid, all-metal construct. Its addition of the supraadjacent level (L3-4) to the fusion (L4-5) did protect the adjacent level from excessive motion. However, it essentially transformed a 1-level lumbar fusion into a 2-level lumbar fusion, with exponential transfer of motion to the fewer remaining discs.

Interpedicular travel in the evaluation of spinal implants: an application in posterior dynamic stabilization

STUDY DESIGN

In vitro flexibility testing of the lumbar spine.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to evaluate a motion-preserving posterior dynamic stabilization (PDS) implant based on newly defined parameters describing interpedicular kinematics.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

PDS implants have been designed as either motion-preserving or adjunct-to-fusion devices to treat various degenerative spinal pathologies. The ambiguity of design and evaluation goals and the inability of traditional biomechanical parameters to appropriately describe the behavior of PDS devices in vitro have served as the impetus to develop kinematic parameters more specific to this class of device.

METHODS

Flexibility testing of 6 fresh-frozen human lumbar spines was conducted before and after destabilization of the index level (L4-L5). Testing under the same protocol was repeated after treatment at the index level with a 1-level PDS device, extension of the device to the adjacent inferior level (L5-S1), and treatment with a hybrid construct consisting of the PDS implant at L4-L5 and rigid fixation at L5-S1. The kinematic response was recorded using an optoelectric tracking system and reported in terms of intervertebral range of motion (ROM) and newly developed parameters describing interpedicular motion.

RESULTS

Based on ROM and interpedicular kinematics, the devices implanted at L4-L5 provide significant but not differing stabilization in flexion-extension with implantation after a significant destabilization procedure. Interpedicular kinematic results indicate that the 2-level construct contributes to significantly more motion at L5-S1 compared with rigid fixation. This result was not detected when evaluated by the ROM metric.

CONCLUSION

Those involved in the design and evaluation of PDS devices may benefit from evaluation of interpedicular kinematics. Evaluating intervertebral motion from the perspective of the pedicle screw allows for a direct and intuitive translation between in vitro test results and design parameters. Furthermore, these parameters may provide additional clinical insight into the biomechanics of the healthy and pathological spine. The study presented indicates that this approach may be more sensitive in detecting differences in implant motion between PDS devices.

Radiographic and clinical results of posterior dynamic stabilization for the treatment of multisegment degenerative disc disease with a minimum follow-up of 3 years

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare radiographic and clinical outcomes of Dynesys and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for the treatment of multisegment disease.

METHODS

Thirty-five consecutive patients who received Dynesys implantation at three levels from L1 to S1 from November 2006 to July 2007 were studied. A retrospective analysis of the medical records of 25 patients with the same indications who received 3-level PLIF (L1-S1) was also conducted. Radiographic and clinical outcomes between the groups were compared. All patients included in the analysis completed 3-year follow-up. Dynesys stabilization resulted in higher preservation of motion at the operative levels, as well as total range of motion from L1 to S1. A decrease of anterior disc height was seen in the Dynesys group and an increase was seen in the PLIF group. An increase in posterior disc height was noted in both groups; however, was greater in the PLIF group at 3 years.

RESULTS

The Dynesys group showed a greater improvement in Oswestry Disability Index and visual analogue scale back pain scores at 3 years postoperatively. There were no differences in complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Dynesys is an acceptable alternative to PLIF for the treatment of multisegment lumbar disease.

An in vivo kinematic comparison of dynamic lumbar stabilization to lumbar discectomy and posterior lumbar fusion using radiostereometric analysis

Background

Biomechanical studies have shown that dynamic stabilization restores the neutral zone and stabilizes the motion segment. Unfortunately, there are limitations to clinical measurement of lumbar motion segments when using routine radiographs. Radiostereometric analysis is a 3-dimensional technique and can measure the spinal motion segment more accurately than techniques using plain film radiographs. The purpose of this study was measure and compare the range of motion after dynamic stabilization, posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), and lumbar discectomy.

Methods

Four patients who underwent lumbar decompression and dynamic stabilization (Dynesys; Zimmer Spine, Inc., Warsaw, Indiana) for treatment of lumbar spondylosis were compared with 4 patients with a similar diagnosis who were treated by PLF and pedicle screw fixation (PLF group) and 8 patients who had undergone lumbar microdiscectomy (discectomy group) for treatment of radiculopathy. During the surgical procedure, 3 to 5 tantalum beads were placed into each of the operative segments. The patients were followed up postoperatively at 1 month, 1 year, and 2 years. At each follow-up time point, segmental motions (flexion, extension, and total sagittal range of motion [SROM]) were measured by radiostereometric analysis.

Results

Flexion, extension, and SROM measured 1.0° ± 0.9°, 1.5° ± 1.3°, and 2.3° ± 1.2°, respectively, in the Dynesys group; 1.0° ± 0.6°, 1.1° ± 0.9°, and 1.5° ± 0.6°, respectively, in the PLF group; and 2.9° ± 2.4°, 2.3° ± 1.5°, and 4.7° ± 2.2°, respectively, in the discectomy group. No significant difference in motion was seen between the Dynesys and PLF groups or between the Dynesys and discectomy groups in extension. Significant differences in motions were seen between the PLF and discectomy groups and between the Dynesys and discectomy groups in flexion (P = .007) and SROM (P = .002). There was no significant change in the measured motions over time.

Conclusions

In this study a significantly lower amount of motion was seen after dynamic stabilization and PLF when compared with discectomy. A future study with a larger cohort is necessary to examine what effect, if any, these motions have on clinical outcomes.

Effect of the cord pretension of the Dynesys dynamic stabilisation system on the biomechanics of the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis

The Dynesys dynamics stabilisation system was developed to maintain the mobility of motion segment of the lumbar spine in order to reduce the incidence of negative effects at the adjacent segments. However, the magnitude of cord pretension may change the stiffness of the Dynesys system and result in a diverse clinical outcome, and the effects of Dynesys cord pretension remain unclear. Displacement-controlled finite element analysis was used to evaluate the biomechanical behaviour of the lumbar spine after insertion of Dynesys with three different cord pretensions. For the implanted level, increasing the cord pretension from 100 to 300 N resulted in an increase in flexion stiffness from 19.0 to 64.5 Nm/deg, a marked increase in facet contact force (FCF) of 35% in extension and 32% in torsion, a 40% increase of the annulus stress in torsion, and an increase in the high-stress region of the pedicle screw in flexion and lateral bending. For the adjacent levels, varying the cord pretension from 100 to 300 N only had a minor influence on range of motion (ROM), FCF, and annulus stress, with changes of 6, 12, and 9%, respectively. This study found that alteration of cord pretension affects the ROM and FCF, and annulus stress within the construct but not the adjacent segment. In addition, use of a 300 N cord pretension causes a much higher stiffness at the implanted level when compared with the intact lumbar spine.

Kinematic evaluation of the adjacent segments after lumbar instrumented surgery: a comparison between rigid fusion and dynamic non-fusion stabilization

The aim of the current study was to evaluate changes in lumbar kinematics after lumbar monosegmental instrumented surgery with rigid fusion and dynamic non-fusion stabilization. A total of 77 lumbar spinal stenosis patients with L4 degenerative spondylolisthesis underwent L4-5 monosegmental posterior instrumented surgery. Of these, 36 patients were treated with rigid fusion (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) and 41 with dynamic stabilization [segmental spinal correction system (SSCS)]. Lumbar kinematics was evaluated with functional radiographs preoperatively and at final follow-up postoperatively. We defined the contribution of each segmental mobility to the total lumbar mobility as the percent segmental mobility [(sagittal angular motion of each segment in degrees)/(total sagittal angular motion in degrees) × 100]. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed on all patients preoperatively and at final follow-up postoperatively. The discs were classified into five grades based on the previously reported system. We defined the progress of disc degeneration as (grade at final follow-up) - (grade at preoperatively). No significant kinematical differences were shown at any of the lumbar segments preoperatively; however, significant differences were observed at the L2-3, L4-5, and L5-S1 segments postoperatively between the groups. At final follow-up, all of the lumbar segments with rigid fusion demonstrated significantly greater disc degeneration than those with dynamic stabilization. Our results suggest that the SSCS preserved 14% of the kinematical operations at the instrumented segment. The SSCS may prevent excessive effects on adjacent segmental kinematics and may prevent the incidence of adjacent segment disorder.

The effect of design parameters of dynamic pedicle screw systems on kinematics and load bearing: an in vitro study

As an alternative treatment for chronic back pain due to disc degeneration motion preserving techniques such as posterior dynamic stabilization (PDS) has been clinically introduced, with the intention to alter the load transfer and the kinematics at the affected level to delay degeneration. However, up to the present, it remains unclear when a PDS is clinically indicated and how the ideal PDS mechanism should be designed to achieve this goal. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare different PDS devices against rigid fixation to investigate the biomechanical impact of PDS design on stabilization and load transfer in the treated and adjacent cranial segment. Six human lumbar spine specimens (L3-L5) were tested in a spine loading apparatus. In vitro flexibility testing was performed by applying pure bending moments of 7.5 Nm without and with additional preload of 400 N in the three principal motion planes. Four PDS devices, "DYN" (Dynesys(®), Zimmer GmbH, Switzerland), "DSS™" (Paradigm Spine, Wurmlingen, Germany), and two prototypes of dynamic rods, "LSC" with a leaf spring, and "STC" with a spring tube (Aesculap AG, Tuttlingen, Germany), were tested in comparison to a rigid fixation device S(4) (Aesculap AG, Tuttlingen, Germany) "RIG", to the native situation "NAT" and to a defect situation "DEF" of the specimens. The instrumented level was L4-L5. The tested PDS devices comprising a stiffness range for axial stiffness of 10 N/mm to 230 N/mm and for bending stiffness of 3 N/mm to 15 N/mm. Range of motion (ROM), neutral zone (NZ), and intradiscal pressure (IDP) were analyzed for all instrumentation steps and load cases of the instrumented and non-instrumented level. In flexion, extension, and lateral bending, all systems, except STC, showed a significant reduction of ROM and NZ compared to the native situation (p < 0.05). Furthermore, we found no significant difference between DYN and RIG (p > 0.1). In axial rotation, only DSS and STC reduced the ROM significantly (p < 0.005) compared to the native situation, whereas DYN and LSC stayed at the level of the native intersegmental rotation (p > 0.05). A correlation was found between axial stiffness and intersegmental stabilization in the sagittal and frontal plane, but not in the transversal plane where intersegmental stabilization is mainly governed by the systems' ability to withstand shear loads. Furthermore, we observed the systems' capacity to reduce IDP in the treated segment. The adjacent segment does not seem to be affected by the stiffness of the fixation device under the described loading conditions.

Evaluation of unilateral cage-instrumented fixation for lumbar spine

Background

To investigate how unilateral cage-instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) affects the three-dimensional flexibility in degenerative disc disease by comparing the biomechanical characteristics of unilateral and bilateral cage-instrumented PLIF.

Methods

Twelve motion segments in sheep lumbar spine specimens were tested for flexion, extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending by nondestructive flexibility test method using a nonconstrained testing apparatus. The specimens were divided into two equal groups. Group 1 received unilateral procedures while group 2 received bilateral procedures. Laminectomy, facectomy, discectomy, cage insertion and transpedicle screw insertion were performed sequentially after testing the intact status. Changes in range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ) were compared between unilateral and bilateral cage-instrumented PLIF.

Results

Both ROM and NZ, unilateral cage-instrumented PLIF and bilateral cage-instrumented PLIF, transpedicle screw insertion procedure did not revealed a significant difference between flexion-extension, lateral bending and axial rotation direction except the ROM in the axial rotation. The bilateral group's ROM (-1.7 ± 0. 8) of axial rotation was decreased significantly after transpedicle screw insertion procedure in comparison with the unilateral group (-0.2 ± 0.1). In the unilateral cage-instrumented PLIF group, the transpedicle screw insertion procedure did not demonstrate a significant difference between right and left side in the lateral bending and axial rotation direction.

Conclusions

Based on the results of this study, unilateral cage-instrumented PLIF and bilateral cage-instrumented PLIF have similar stability after transpedicle screw fixation in the sheep spine model. The unilateral approach can substantially reduce exposure requirements. It also offers the biomechanics advantage of construction using anterior column support combined with pedicle screws just as the bilateral cage-instrumented group. The unpleasant effect of couple motion resulting from inherent asymmetry was absent in the unilateral group.

Dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion: part I. Biomechanical effects on lumbar spinal motion

Progression of superior adjacent segment degeneration (PASD) could possibly be avoided by dynamic stabilization of an initially degenerated adjacent segment (AS). The current study evaluates ex vivo the biomechanics of a circumferential fixation connected to posterior dynamic stabilization at the AS. 6 human cadaver spines (L2-S1) were stabilized stepwise through the following conditions for comparison: intact spine (ISP), single-level fixation L5-S1 (SLF), SLF + dynamic AS fixation L4-L5 (DFT), and two-level fixation L4-S1 (TLF). For each condition, the moments required to reach the range of motion (ROM) of the intact whole spine segment under ±10 Nm (WSP10) were compared for all major planes of motion within L2-S1. The ROM at segments L2/3, L3/4, and L4/5 when WSP10 was applied were also compared for each condition. The moments needed to maintain WSP10 increased with each stage of stabilization, from ISP to SLF to DFT to TLF (p < 0.001), in all planes of motion within L2-S1. The ROM increased in the same order at L3/4 (extension, flexion, and lateral bending) and L2/3 (all except right axial rotation, left lateral bending) during WSP10 application with 300 N axial preload (p < 0.005 in ANOVA). At L4/5, while applying WSP10, all planes of motion were affected by stepwise stabilization (p < 0.001): ROM increased from ISP to SLF and decreased from SLF to DFT to TLF (partially p < 0.05). The moments required to reach WSP10 increase dependent on the number of fixated levels and the fixation stiffness of the implants used. Additional fixation shifts motion to the superior segment, according to fixation stiffness. Therefore, dynamic instrumentation cannot be recommended if prevention of hyper-mobility in the adjacent levels is the main target.

Dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion: part II. No clinical benefit for asymptomatic, initially degenerated adjacent segments after 6 years follow-up

Progression of degeneration is often described in patients with initially degenerated segment adjacent to fusion (iASD) at the time of surgery. The aim of the present study was to compare dynamic fixation of a clinically asymptomatic iASD, with circumferential lumbar fusion alone. 60 patients with symptomatic degeneration of L5/S1 or L4/L5 (Modic ≥ 2°) and asymptomatic iASD (Modic = 1°, confirmed by discography) were divided into two groups. 30 patients were treated with circumferential single-level fusion (SLF). In dynamic fixation transition (DFT) patients, additional posterior dynamic fixation of iASD was performed. Preoperatively, at 12 months, and at a mean follow-up of 76.4 (60-91) months, radiological (MRI, X-ray) and clinical (ODI, VAS, satisfaction) evaluations assessed fusion, progression of adjacent segment degeneration (PASD), radiologically adverse events, functional outcome, and pain. At final follow-up, two non-fusions were observed in both groups. 6 SLF patients and 1 DFT patient presented a PASD. In two DFT patients, a PASD occurred in the segment superior to the dynamic fixation, and in one DFT patient, a fusion of the dynamically fixated segment was observed. 4 DFT patients presented radiological implant failure. While no differences in clinical scores were observed between groups, improvement from pre-operative conditions was significant (all p < 0.001). Clinical scores were equal in patients with PASD and/or radiologically adverse events. We do not recommend dynamically fixating the adjacent segment in patients with clinically asymptomatic iASD. The lower number of PASD with dynamic fixation was accompanied by a high number of implant failures and a shift of PASD to the superior segment.

Segment-by-segment stabilization for degenerative disc disease: a hybrid technique

Patients with multisegmental degenerative disc disease (DDD) resistant to conservative therapy are typically treated with either fusion or non-fusion surgical techniques. The two techniques can be applied at adjacent levels using Dynesys (Zimmer GmbH, Winterthur, Switzerland) implants in a segment-by-segment treatment of multiple level DDD. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcome of patients treated using this segment-by-segment application of Dynesys in some levels as a non-fusion device and in other segments in combination with a PLIF as a fusion device. A consecutive case series is reported. The sample included 16 females and 15 males with a mean age of 53.6 years (range 26.3-76.4 years). Mean follow-up time was 39 months (range 24-90 months). Preoperative Oswestry disability index (ODI), back- and leg-pain scores (VAS) were compared to postoperative status. Fusion success and system failure were assessed by an independent reviewer who analyzed AP and lateral X-rays. Back pain improved from 7.3 +/- 1.7 to 3.4 +/- 2.7 (p < 0.000002), leg pain from 6.0 +/- 2.9 to 2.3 +/- 2.9 (p < 0.00006), and ODI from 51.6 +/- 13.2% to 28.7 +/- 18.0% (p < 0.00001). Screw loosening occurred in one of a total of 222 implanted screws (0.45%). The results indicate that segment-by-segment treatment with Dynesys in combination with interbody fusion is technically feasible, safe, and effective for the surgical treatment of multilevel DDD.

Non-fusion instrumentation of the lumbar spine with a hinged pedicle screw rod system: an in vitro experiment

In advanced stages of degenerative disease of the lumbar spine instrumented spondylodesis is still the golden standard treatment. However, in recent years dynamic stabilisation devices are being implanted to treat the segmental instability due to iatrogenic decompression or segmental degeneration. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the stabilising effect of a classical pedicle screw/rod combination, with a moveable hinge joint connection between the screw and rod allowing one degree of freedom (cosmicMIA). Six human lumbar spines (L2-5) were loaded in a spine tester with pure moments of +/-7.5 Nm in lateral bending, flexion/extension and axial rotation. The range of motion (ROM) and the neutral zone were determined for the following states: (1) intact, (2) monosegmental dynamic instrumentation (L4-5), (3) bisegmental dynamic instrumentation (L3-5), (4) bisegmental decompression (L3-5), (5) bisegmental dynamic instrumentation (L3-5) and (6) bisegmental rigid instrumentation (L3-5). Compared to the intact, with monosegmental instrumentation (2) the ROM of the treated segment was reduced to 47, 40 and 77% in lateral bending, flexion/extension and axial rotation, respectively. Bisegmental dynamic instrumentation (3) further reduced the ROM in L4-5 compared to monosegmental instrumentation to 25% (lateral bending), 28% (flexion/extension) and 57% (axial rotation). Bisegmental surgical decompression (4) caused an increase in ROM in both segments (L3-4 and L4-5) to approximately 125% and approximately 135% and 187-234% in lateral bending, flexion/extension and axial rotation, respectively. Compared to the intact state, bisegmental dynamic instrumentation after surgical decompression reduced the ROM of the two-bridged segments to 29-35% in lateral bending and 33-38% in flexion/extension. In axial rotation, the ROM was in the range of the intact specimen (87-117%). A rigid instrumentation (6) further reduced the ROM of the two-bridged segments to 20-30, 23-27 and 50-68% in lateral bending, flexion/extension and axial rotation, respectively. The results of the present study showed that compared to the intact specimen the investigated hinged dynamic stabilisation device reduced the ROM after bisegmental decompression in lateral bending and flexion/extension. Following bisegmental decompression and the thereby caused large rotational instability the device is capable of restoring the motion in axial rotation back to values in the range of the intact motion segments.

Molecular MR imaging for the evaluation of the effect of dynamic stabilization on lumbar intervertebral discs

The dynamic stabilization of lumbar spine is a non-fusion stabilization system that unloads the disc without the complete loss of motion at the treated motion segment. Clinical outcomes are promising but still not definitive, and the long-term effect on instrumented and adjacent levels is still a matter of discussion. Several experiments have been devised in order to gain a better understanding of the effect of the device on the intervertebral disc. One of the hypotheses was that while instrumented levels are partially relieved from loading, adjacent levels suffer from the increased stress. But this has not been proved yet. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term effect of dynamic stabilization in vivo, through the quantification of glycosaminoglycans (GAG) concentration within instrumented and adjacent levels by means of the delayed Gadolinium-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Cartilage (dGEMRIC) protocol. Ten patients with low back pain, unresponsive to conservative treatment and scheduled for Dynesys implantation at one to three lumbar spine levels, underwent the dGEMRIC protocol to quantify GAG concentration before and 6 months after surgery. Each patient was also evaluated with visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry, Prolo, Modic and Pfirrmann scales, both at pre-surgery and at follow-up. Six months after implantation, VAS, Prolo and Oswestry scales had improved in all patients. Pfirrmann scale could not detect any change, while dGEMRIC data already showed a general improvement in the instrumented levels: GAG was increased in 61% of the instrumented levels, while 68% of the non-instrumented levels showed a decrease in GAG, mainly in the posterior disc portion. In particular, seriously GAG-depleted discs seemed to have the greatest benefit from the Dynesys implantation, whereas less degenerated discs underwent a GAG depletion. dGEMRIC was able to visualize changes in both instrumented and non-instrumented levels. Our results suggest that the dynamic stabilization of lumbar spine is able to stop and partially reverse the disc degeneration, especially in seriously degenerated discs, while incrementing the stress on the adjacent levels, where it induces a matrix suffering and an early degeneration.

Biomechanical evaluation of pedicle screw-based dynamic stabilization devices for the lumbar spine: a systematic review

Study Design

This study is a systematic review of published biomechanical studies involving pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilization devices (PDS) with a special focus on kinematics and load transmission through the functional spine unit (FSU).

Methods

A literature search was performed via the PubMed online database from 1990 to 2008 using the following key words: “biomechanics,” “lumbar dynamic stabilization,” “Graf system,” “Dynesys,” and “posterior dynamic implant.” Citations were limited to papers describing biomechanics of pedicle screw-based PDS devices currently available for clinical use. Studies describing clinical experience, radiology, and in vivo testing were excluded from the review. Parameters measured included kinematics of the FSU (range of motion (ROM), neutral zone (NZ), and location of the center of rotation) and load transmission through the disk, facets, and instrumentation.

Results

A total of 27 publications were found that concerned the biomechanical evaluation of lumbar pedicle screw-based dynamic stabilization instrumentation. Nine in vitro experimental studies and 4 finite element analyses satisfied the inclusion criteria. The Dynesys implant was the most investigated pedicle screw-based PDS system. In vitro cadaveric studies mainly focused on kinematics comparing ROM of intact versus instrumented spines whereas finite element analyses allowed analysis of load transmission at the instrumented and adjacent levels.

Conclusion

Biomechanical studies demonstrate that pedicle screw-based PDS devices limit intervertebral motion while unloading the intervertebral disk. The implant design and the surgical technique have a significant impact on the biomechanical behavior of the instrumented spinal segment. The posterior placement of such devices results in non-physiologic intervertebral kinematics with a posterior shift of the axis of rotation. Biomechanical studies suggest that the difference at the adjacent level between investigated dynamic devices and rigid stabilization systems may not be as high as reported. Finally, additional investigations of semirigid devices are needed to further evaluate their biomechanical properties compared to soft stabilization PDS systems.