scholarly journals Functional and radiographic evaluation of an interspinous device as an adjunct for lumbar interbody fusion procedures

2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-189
Author(s):  
Anna Spicher ◽  
Werner Schmoelz ◽  
Rene Schmid ◽  
Hannes Stofferin ◽  
Niall J.A. Craig
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Internal Fixator ◽  
Surgical Trauma ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Native State ◽  
Pedicle Screw Instrumentation ◽  
Interspinous Device ◽  
Interspinous Devices ◽  
Flexion And Extension

AbstractIn the last decades, several interspinous process devices were designed as a minimally invasive treatment option for spinal stenosis. In order to minimise surgical trauma, interspinous process devices were recently discussed as an alternative posterior fixation in vertebral interbody fusions. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a newly designed interspinous device with polyester bands (PBs) on range of motion (RoM) and centre of rotation (CoR) of a treated motion segment in comparison with an established interspinous device with spikes (SC) as well as with pedicle screw instrumentation in lumbar fusion procedures. Flexibility tests with an applied pure moment load of 7.5 Nm were performed in six monosegmental thoracolumbar functional spinal units (FSUs) in the following states: (a) native, (b) native with PB device, (c) intervertebral cage with PB device, (d) cage with SC and (e) cage with internal fixator. The resulting RoM was normalised to the native RoM. The CoR was determined of X-ray images taken in maximal flexion and extension during testing. In flexion and extension, the PB device without and with the cage reduced the RoM of the native state to 58% [standard deviation (SD) 17.8] and 53% (SD 15.7), respectively. The SC device further reduced the RoM to 27% (SD 16.8), while the pedicle screw instrumentation had the most reducing effect to 17% (SD 17.2) (p < 0.01). In lateral bending and axial rotation, the interspinous devices had the least effect on the RoM. Compared to the native state, for all instrumentations the CoR showed a small shift towards cranial. In the anterior-posterior direction, the SC device and the pedicle screw instrumentation shifted the CoR towards the posterior wall. The interspinous devices significantly reduced the RoM in flexion/extension, while in axial rotation and lateral bending only the internal fixator had a significant effect on the RoM.

scholarly journals Biomechanical evaluation of the ProDisc-C stability following graded posterior cervical injury

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 515-524
Author(s):  
Michael D. Staudt ◽  
Doron Rabin ◽  
Ali A. Baaj ◽  
Neil R. Crawford ◽  
Neil Duggal
Keyword(s):  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Cervical Injury ◽  
Cervical Arthroplasty ◽  
Posterior Surgery ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Posterior Element ◽  
And Control ◽  
Flexion And Extension

OBJECTIVEThere are limited data regarding the implications of revision posterior surgery in the setting of previous cervical arthroplasty (CA). The purpose of this study was to analyze segmental biomechanics in human cadaveric specimens with and without CA, in the context of graded posterior resection.METHODSFourteen human cadaveric cervical spines (C3–T1 or C2–7) were divided into arthroplasty (ProDisc-C, n = 7) and control (intact disc, n = 7) groups. Both groups underwent sequential posterior element resections: unilateral foraminotomy, laminoplasty, and finally laminectomy. Specimens were studied sequentially in two different loading apparatuses during the induction of flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation.RESULTSRange of motion (ROM) after artificial disc insertion was reduced relative to that in the control group during axial rotation and lateral bending (13% and 28%, respectively; p < 0.05) but was similar during flexion and extension. With sequential resections, ROM increased by a similar magnitude following foraminotomy and laminoplasty in both groups. Laminectomy had a much greater effect: mean (aggregate) ROM during flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation was increased by a magnitude of 52% following laminectomy in the setting of CA, compared to an 8% increase without arthroplasty. In particular, laminectomy in the setting of CA introduced significant instability in flexion-extension, characterized by a 90% increase in ROM from laminoplasty to laminectomy, compared to a 16% increase in ROM from laminoplasty to laminectomy without arthroplasty (p < 0.05).CONCLUSIONSForaminotomy and laminoplasty did not result in significant instability in the setting of CA, compared to controls. Laminectomy alone, however, resulted in a significant change in biomechanics, allowing for significantly increased flexion and extension. Laminectomy alone should be used with caution in the setting of previous CA.

Biomechanics of a lumbar interspinous anchor with anterior lumbar interbody fusion

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 372-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dean G. Karahalios ◽  
Taro Kaibara ◽  
Randall W. Porter ◽  
Udaya K. Kakarla ◽  
Phillip M. Reyes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Plate Fixation ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Anterior Plate ◽  
Foraminal Height ◽  
Flexion And Extension

Object An interspinous anchor (ISA) provides fixation to the lumbar spine to facilitate fusion. The biomechanical stability provided by the Aspen ISA was studied in applications utilizing an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) construct. Methods Seven human cadaveric L3–S1 specimens were tested in the following states: 1) intact; 2) after placing an ISA at L4–5; 3) after ALIF with an ISA; 4) after ALIF with an ISA and anterior screw/plate fixation system; 5) after removing the ISA (ALIF with plate only); 6) after removing the plate (ALIF only); and 7) after applying bilateral pedicle screws and rods. Pure moments (7.5 Nm maximum) were applied in flexion and extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation while recording angular motion optoelectronically. Changes in angulation as well as foraminal height were also measured. Results All instrumentation variances except ALIF alone reduced angular range of motion (ROM) significantly from normal in all directions of loading. The ISA was most effective in limiting flexion and extension (25% of normal) and less effective in reducing lateral bending (71% of normal) and axial rotation (71% of normal). Overall, ALIF with an ISA provided stability that was statistically equivalent to ALIF with bilateral pedicle screws and rods. An ISA-augmented ALIF allowed less ROM than plate-augmented ALIF during flexion, extension, and lateral bending. Use of the ISA resulted in flexion at the index level, with a resultant increase in foraminal height. Compensatory extension at the adjacent levels prevented any significant change in overall sagittal balance. Conclusions When used with ALIF at L4–5, the ISA provides immediate rigid immobilization of the lumbar spine, allowing equivalent ROM to that of a pedicle screw/rod system, and smaller ROM than an anterior plate. When used with ALIF, the ISA may offer an alternative to anterior plate fixation or bilateral pedicle screw/rod constructs.

Design and development of a novel expanding flexible rod device (FRD) for stability in the lumbar spine: A finite-element study

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (12) ◽  
pp. 803-810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masud Rana ◽  
Sandipan Roy ◽  
Palash Biswas ◽  
Shishir Kumar Biswas ◽  
Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Von Mises Stress ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Intact Bone ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Von Mises

The aim of this study is to design a novel expanding flexible rod device, for pedicle screw fixation to provide dynamic stability, based on strength and flexibility. Three-dimensional finite-element models of lumbar spine (L1-S) with flexible rod device on L3-L4-L5 levels are developed. The implant material is taken to be Ti-6Al-4V. The models are simulated under different boundary conditions, and the results are compared with intact model. In natural model, total range of motion under 10 Nm moment were found 66.7°, 24.3° and 13.59°, respectively during flexion–extension, lateral bending and axial rotation. The von Mises stress at intact bone was 4 ± 2 MPa and at bone, adjacent to the screw in the implanted bone, was 6 ± 3 MPa. The von Mises stress of disc of intact bone varied from 0.36 to 2.13 MPa while that of the disc between the fixed vertebra of the fixation model reduced by approximately 10% for flexion and 25% for extension compared to intact model. The von Mises stresses of pedicle screw were 120, 135, 110 and 90 MPa during flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, respectively. All the stress values were within the safe limit of the material. Using the flexible rod device, flexibility was significantly increased in flexion/extension but not in axial rotation and lateral bending. The results suggest that dynamic stabilization system with respect to fusion is more effective for homogenizing the range of motion of the spine.

Craniovertebral junction fixation with transarticular screws: biomechanical analysis of a novel technique

2003 ◽  
Vol 98 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Fernando Gonzalez ◽  
Neil R. Crawford ◽  
Robert H. Chamberlain ◽  
Luis E. Perez Garza ◽  
Mark C. Preul ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Craniovertebral Junction ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Additional Stability ◽  
A New Technique ◽  
Flexion And Extension ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The authors compared the biomechanical stability resulting from the use of a new technique for occipitoatlantal motion segment fixation with an established method and assessed the additional stability provided by combining the two techniques. Methods. Specimens were loaded using nonconstraining pure moments while recording the three-dimensional angular movement at occiput (Oc)—C1 and C1–2. Specimens were tested intact and after destabilization and fixation as follows: 1) Oc—C1 transarticular screws plus C1–2 transarticular screws; 2) occipitocervical transarticular (OCTA) plate in which C1–2 transarticular screws attach to a loop from Oc to C-2; and (3) OCTA plate plus Oc—C1 transarticular screws. Occipitoatlantal transarticular screws reduced motion to well within the normal range. The OCTA loop and transarticular screws allowed a very small neutral zone, elastic zone, and range of motion during lateral bending and axial rotation. The transarticular screws, however, were less effective than the OCTA loop in resisting flexion and extension. Conclusions. Biomechanically, Oc—C1 transarticular screws performed well enough to be considered as an alternative for Oc—C1 fixation, especially when instability at C1–2 is minimal. Techniques for augmenting these screws posteriorly by using a wired bone graft buttress, as is currently undertaken with C1–2 transarticular screws, may be needed for optimal performance.

Biomechanical analysis of stand-alone lumbar interbody cages versus 360° constructs: an in vitro and finite element investigation

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Instrumentation ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Interbody Cage ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Lateral Interbody ◽  
Flexion And Extension

OBJECTIVE Low fusion rates and cage subsidence are limitations of lumbar fixation with stand-alone interbody cages. Various approaches to interbody cage placement exist, yet the need for supplemental posterior fixation is not clear from clinical studies. Therefore, as prospective clinical studies are lacking, a comparison of segmental kinematics, cage properties, and load sharing on vertebral endplates is needed. This laboratory investigation evaluates the mechanical stability and biomechanical properties of various interbody fixation techniques by performing cadaveric and finite element (FE) modeling studies. METHODS An in vitro experiment using 7 fresh-frozen human cadavers was designed to test intact spines with 1) stand-alone lateral interbody cage constructs (lateral interbody fusion, LIF) and 2) LIF supplemented with posterior pedicle screw-rod fixation (360° constructs). FE and kinematic data were used to validate a ligamentous FE model of the lumbopelvic spine. The validated model was then used to evaluate the stability of stand-alone LIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) cages with and without supplemental posterior fixation at the L4–5 level. The FE models of intact and instrumented cases were subjected to a 400-N compressive preload followed by an 8-Nm bending moment to simulate physiological flexion, extension, bending, and axial rotation. Segmental kinematics and load sharing at the inferior endplate were compared. RESULTS The FE kinematic predictions were consistent with cadaveric data. The range of motion (ROM) in LIF was significantly lower than intact spines for both stand-alone and 360° constructs. The calculated reduction in motion with respect to intact spines for stand-alone constructs ranged from 43% to 66% for TLIF, 67%–82% for LIF, and 69%–86% for ALIF in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. In flexion and extension, the maximum reduction in motion was 70% for ALIF versus 81% in LIF for stand-alone cases. When supplemented with posterior fixation, the corresponding reduction in ROM was 76%–87% for TLIF, 86%–91% for LIF, and 90%–92% for ALIF. The addition of posterior instrumentation resulted in a significant reduction in peak stress at the superior endplate of the inferior segment in all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS Stand-alone ALIF and LIF cages are most effective in providing stability in lateral bending and axial rotation and less so in flexion and extension. Supplemental posterior instrumentation improves stability for all interbody techniques. Comparative clinical data are needed to further define the indications for stand-alone cages in lumbar fusion surgery.

Augmentation of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Anterior Pedicle Screw Fixation: Demonstration of Novel Constructs and Evaluation of Biomechanical Stability in Cadaveric Specimens

Neurosurgery ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 522-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aftab Karim ◽  
Debi Mukherjee ◽  
Murali Ankem ◽  
Jorge Gonzalez-Cruz ◽  
Donald Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Biomechanical Stability ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Computed Tomographic ◽  
Flexion Extension

Abstract OBJECTIVE: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has proven effective for indications including discogenic back pain, nonunion, and instability. Current practice involves posterior pedicle screw augmentation of the ALIF procedure (ALIF-PPS). This approach requires intraoperative repositioning of the patient for percutaneous posterior pedicle screw placement. We have developed a novel technique in which the ALIF procedure is augmented with anterior pedicle screws (APS; ALIF-APS). In this study, we introduce this new technique and compare the biomechanical stability of the novel ALIF-APS with the current standard ALIF-PPS. METHODS: The technique was demonstrated in a cadaveric L4–S1 specimen using neuronavigation and fluoroscopy. Plain radiographs and computed tomographic scans of the construct were obtained. Twelve cadaveric spines (7 men and 5 women) from donors with an average age of 81 years (range, 64–93 yr) were then harvested from L4–S1. Six specimens were dedicated to ALIF-APS constructs, and the remaining six were dedicated to ALIF-PPS constructs. The specimens were then studied at L5–S1 in the following steps: 1) intact form, 2) after anterior discectomy, 3) after implantation of titanium cages (ALIF), and 4) after APS or PPS fixation in conjunction with the ALIF. Measurements were obtained in axial rotation and left and right lateral bending flexion-extension. Data were normalized by calculating the ratio of the stiffness of the instrumented to the intact spine. Statistical analyses were then performed on the data. RESULTS: Radiographs and computed tomographic scans of the construct showed accurate placement of the APS at L5 and S1. The normalized data showed that ALIF-APS and ALIF-PPS had approximately equal stability in axial rotation (1.17 ± 0.43 versus 0.85 ± 0.14), lateral bending (0.93 ± 0.22 versus 0.95 ± 0.16), and flexion- extension (0.77 ± 0.13 versus 0.84 ± 0.2). Paired t test analysis did not show a significant difference between the biomechanical stiffness of ALIF-APS and ALIF-PPS in axial rotation, lateral bending, and flexion-extension. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate a new technique in a cadaveric specimen whereby the ALIF procedure is augmented with APS fixation using neuronavigation and fluoroscopy. Biomechanical evaluation of the constructs suggests that the ALIF-APS has comparable stability with ALIF-PPS. APS augmentation of ALIF has potential advantages over the current standard ALIF-PPS because it can 1) eliminate the patient repositioning step, 2) minimize the total number of incisions and the total operative time, and 3) protect against dislocation of the ALIF interbody graft or cage. Work is in progress to develop a low-profile system for the novel APS constructs described here.

scholarly journals Biomechanics of transvertebral screw fixation in the thoracic spine: an in vitro study

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nestor G. Rodriguez-Martinez ◽  
Amey Savardekar ◽  
Eric W. Nottmeier ◽  
Stephen Pirris ◽  
Phillip M. Reyes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Thoracic Spine ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Motion Segment ◽  
Thoracic Spinal ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Intact Condition ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Stability

OBJECTIVE Transvertebral screws provide stability in thoracic spinal fixation surgeries, with their use mainly limited to patients who require a pedicle screw salvage technique. However, the biomechanical impact of transvertebral screws alone, when they are inserted across 2 vertebral bodies, has not been studied. In this study, the authors assessed the stability offered by a transvertebral screw construct for posterior instrumentation and compared its biomechanical performance to that of standard bilateral pedicle screw and rod (PSR) fixation. METHODS Fourteen fresh human cadaveric thoracic spine segments from T-6 to T-11 were divided into 2 groups with similar ages and bone quality. Group 1 received transvertebral screws across 2 levels without rods and subsequently with interconnecting bilateral rods at 3 levels (T8–10). Group 2 received bilateral PSR fixation and were sequentially tested with interconnecting rods at T7–8 and T9–10, at T8–9, and at T8–10. Flexibility tests were performed on intact and instrumented specimens in both groups. Presurgical and postsurgical O-arm 3D images were obtained to verify screw placement. RESULTS The mean range of motion (ROM) per motion segment with transvertebral screws spanning 2 levels compared with the intact condition was 66% of the mean intact ROM during flexion-extension (p = 0.013), 69% during lateral bending (p = 0.015), and 47% during axial rotation (p < 0.001). The mean ROM per motion segment with PSR spanning 2 levels compared with the intact condition was 38% of the mean intact ROM during flexion-extension (p < 0.001), 57% during lateral bending (p = 0.007), and 27% during axial rotation (p < 0.001). Adding bilateral rods to the 3 levels with transvertebral screws decreased the mean ROM per motion segment to 28% of intact ROM during flexion-extension (p < 0.001), 37% during lateral bending (p < 0.001), and 30% during axial rotation (p < 0.001). The mean ROM per motion segment for PSR spanning 3 levels was 21% of intact ROM during flexion-extension (p < 0.001), 33% during lateral bending (p < 0.001), and 22% during axial rotation (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Biomechanically, fixation with a novel technique in the thoracic spine involving transvertebral screws showed restoration of stability to well within the stability provided by PSR fixation.

An in Vitro Biomechanical Model of Differing Pedicle Screw Configurations for Long Construct Segmental Thoracic Fixation

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 718-723 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Tuchman ◽  
Alexander W L Turner ◽  
Melodie F Metzger ◽  
Frank L Acosta
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Biomechanical Model ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Strain Gauges ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Lower Strain ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Fixation Points ◽  
Post Hoc

Abstract BACKGROUND The optimum pattern of pedicle screw (PS) fixation during long-segment thoracic fixation has not been determined. OBJECTIVE To evaluate rod stress and construct stability with minimal, alternating, skipped, and bilateral PS constructs in the iatrogenically destabilized thoracic spine. METHODS Eight cadaveric thoracic specimens (T3-T12) were initially tested intact to ±5 Nm using a custom 6 degree-of-freedom spine testing apparatus in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation. Specimens were instrumented with T4-T10 bilateral PS, with Ponte osteotomies to introduce instability. Rods were bent to fit the PS and then spines were tested with the minimal, alternating, skipped, and bilateral fixation patterns. Range of motion (ROM) was calculated from T4-T10 and segmentally. In addition, strain gauges fixed to the spinal rods measured rod stress under FE and LB. Results were compared using ANOVA and post hoc Holm Sidak tests. RESULTS All fixation patterns provided significant reductions in ROM with respect to the intact spine. In all motion planes, minimal provided the least amount of rigidity, while bilateral provide the greatest; however, no statistically significant differences were detected in FE. In LB and axial rotation, skipped, alternating, and bilateral were all significantly more rigid than minimal (P &lt; .01). Rod strains were greatest under LB and correlated with overall construct ROM, where bilateral had significantly lower strain than the other patterns (P &lt; .05). CONCLUSION All constructs effectively decreased thoracic ROM. There was significant improvement in stabilization and decreased rod stress when more fixation points beyond the minimal construct were included.

Biomechanical analysis in a human cadaveric model of spinous process fixation with an interlaminar allograft spacer for lumbar spinal stenosis

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 585-593 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben B. Pradhan ◽  
Alexander W. L. Turner ◽  
Michael A. Zatushevsky ◽  
G. Bryan Cornwall ◽  
Sean S. Rajaee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Spinous Process ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Instrumented Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Spinal ◽  
Flexion And Extension

Object Traditional posterior pedicle screw fixation is well established as the standard for spinal stabilization following posterior or posterolateral lumbar fusion. In patients with lumbar spinal stenosis requiring segmental posterior instrumented fusion and decompression, interlaminar lumbar instrumented fusion (ILIF) is a potentially less invasive alternative with reduced morbidity and includes direct decompression assisted by an interlaminar allograft spacer stabilized by a spinous process plate. To date, there has been no biomechanical study on this technique. In the present study the biomechanical properties of the ILIF construct were evaluated using an in vitro cadaveric biomechanical analysis, and the results are presented in comparison with other posterior fixation techniques. Methods Eight L1–5 cadaveric specimens were subjected to nondestructive multidirectional testing. After testing the intact spine, the following conditions were evaluated at L3–4: bilateral pedicle screws, bilateral laminotomy, ILIF, partial laminectomy, partial laminectomy plus unilateral pedicle screws, and partial laminectomy plus bilateral screws. Intervertebral motions were measured at the index and adjacent levels. Results Bilateral pedicle screws without any destabilization provided the most rigid construct. In flexion and extension, ILIF resulted in significantly less motion than the intact spine (p < 0.05) and no significant difference from the laminectomy with bilateral pedicle screws (p = 0.76). In lateral bending, there was no statistical difference between ILIF and laminectomy with unilateral pedicle screws (p = 0.11); however, the bilateral screw constructs were more rigid (p < 0.05). Under axial rotation, ILIF was not statistically different from laminectomy with unilateral or bilateral pedicle screws or from the intact spine (p > 0.05). Intervertebral motions adjacent to ILIF were typically lower than those adjacent to laminectomy with bilateral pedicle screws. Conclusions Stability of the ILIF construct was not statistically different from bilateral pedicle screw fixation following laminectomy in the flexion and extension and axial rotation directions, while adjacent segment motions were decreased. The ILIF construct may allow surgeons to perform a minimally invasive, single-approach posterior decompression and instrumented fusion without the added morbidity of traditional pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion.

Dynamic lumbar pedicle screw-rod stabilization: in vitro biomechanical comparison with standard rigid pedicle screw-rod stabilization

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hakan Bozkuş ◽  
Mehmet Şenoğlu ◽  
Seungwon Baek ◽  
Anna G. U. Sawa ◽  
Ali Fahir Özer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Stress Shielding ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Bending Moments ◽  
Axial Loads ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Lumbar Stabilization

Object It is unclear how the biomechanics of dynamic posterior lumbar stabilization systems and traditional rigid pedicle screw-rod systems differ. This study examined the biomechanical response of a hinged-dynamic pedicle screw compared with a standard rigid screw used in a 1-level pedicle screw-rod construct. Methods Unembalmed human cadaveric L3–S1 segments were tested intact, after L4–5 discectomy, after rigid pedicle screw-rod fixation, and after dynamic pedicle screw-rod fixation. Specimens were loaded using pure moments to induce flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation while recording motion optoelectronically. Specimens were then loaded in physiological flexion-extension while applying 400 N of compression. Moment and force across instrumentation were recorded from pairs of strain gauges mounted on the interconnecting rods. Results The hinged-dynamic screws allowed an average of 160% greater range of motion during flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation than standard rigid screws (p < 0.03) but 30% less motion than normal. When using standard screws, bending moments and axial loads on the rods were greater than the bending moments and axial loads on the rods when using dynamic screws during most loading modes (p < 0.05). The axis of rotation shifted significantly posteriorly more than 10 mm from its normal position with both devices. Conclusions In a 1-level pedicle screw-rod construct, hinged-dynamic screws allowed a quantity of motion that was substantially closer to normal motion than that allowed by rigid pedicle screws. Both systems altered kinematics similarly. Less load was borne by the hinged screw construct, indicating that the hinged-dynamic screws allow less stress shielding than standard rigid screws.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document