Effect of Facetectomy on the Three-Dimensional Biomechanical Properties of the Fourth Canine Cervical Functional Spinal Unit: A Cadaveric Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (06) ◽  
pp. 430-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadja Bösch ◽  
Martin Hofstetter ◽  
Alexander Bürki ◽  
Beatriz Vidondo ◽  
Fenella Davies ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Motion Analysis ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Biomechanical Properties ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Coupled Motion ◽  
Functional Spinal Unit ◽  
Flexion Extension

Abstract Objective To study the biomechanical effect of facetectomy in 10 large breed dogs (>24 kg body weight) on the fourth canine cervical functional spinal unit. Methods Canine cervical spines were freed from all muscles. Spines were mounted on a six-degrees-of-freedom spine testing machine for three-dimensional motion analysis. Data were recorded with an optoelectronic motion analysis system. The range of motion wasdetermined inall threeprimary motionsaswellasrange of motion of coupled motions on the intact specimen, after unilateral and after bilateral facetectomy. Repeated-measures analysis of variance models were used to assess the changes of the biomechanical properties in the three treatment groups considered. Results Facetectomy increased range of motion of primary motions in all directions. Axial rotation was significantly influenced by facetectomy. Coupled motion was not influenced by facetectomy except for lateral bending with coupled motion axial rotation. The coupling factor (coupled motion/primary motion) decreased after facetectomy. Symmetry of motion was influenced by facetectomy in flexion–extension and axial rotation, but not in lateral bending. Clinical Significance Facet joints play a significant role in the stability of the cervical spine and act to maintain spatial integrity. Therefore, cervical spinal treatments requiring a facetectomy should be carefully planned and if an excessive increase in range of motion is expected, complications should be anticipated and reduced via spinal stabilization.

scholarly journals Design of a Dynamic Stabilization Spine Implant

2009 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Bryndza ◽  
A. Weiser ◽  
M. Paliwal
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Mechanical Testing ◽  
Computational Analysis ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Dynamic Stabilization ◽  
Facet Joints ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Functional Spinal Unit ◽  
Flexion Extension

Arthritis, degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, and other ailments lead to the deterioration of the facet joints of the spine, causing pain and immobility in patients. Dynamic stabilization and arthroplasty of the facet joints have advantages over traditional fusion methods by eliminating pain while maintaining normal mobility and function. In the present work, a novel dynamic stabilization spine implant design was developed using computational analysis, and the final design was fabricated and mechanically tested. A model of a fused L4–L5 Functional Spinal Unit (FSU) was developed using Pro/Engineer (PTC Corporation, Needham, MA). The model was imported into commercial finite element analysis software Ansys (Ansys Inc., Canonsburg, PA), and meshed with the material properties of bone, intervertebral disc, and titanium alloy. Physiological loads (600N axial load, 10 N-m moment) were applied to the model construct following the protocol developed by others. The model was subjected to flexion/extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending, and was validated with the results reported by Kim et al. The validated FSU was used as a base to design and evaluate novel spine implant designs, using finite element anlysis. A comparison of the flexion-extension curve of six designs and an intact spine was carried out. Range of motion of the new designs showed up to 4 degrees in flexion and extension, compared to less than one degree flexion/extension in a fused spine. The design that reproduced normal range of motion best was optimized, fabricated and prepared for mechanical testing. The finalized dynamic stabilization design with spring insert was implanted into a L4-L5 FSU sawbone (Pacific Research Laboratories, Vashon, WA) using Stryker Xia pedicle screws. The construct was potted using PMMA, and was subjected to flexion/extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending loads using MTS mechanical testing machine. The stiffness of the design was assessed and compared with computational analysis results.

How the height and the area of the annulus fibrosus affect the range of motion behavior: A stochastic analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 233 (10) ◽  
pp. 1985-1992
Author(s):  
Héctor E Jaramillo S
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Annulus Fibrosus ◽  
Element Model ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Disc Height ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Analytic Equation ◽  
Geometrical Properties ◽  
Flexion Extension

The annulus fibrosus has substantial variations in its geometrical properties (among individuals and between levels), and plays an important role in the biomechanics of the spine. Few works have studied the influence of the geometrical properties including annulus area, anterior / posterior disc height, and over the range of motion, but in general these properties have not been reported in the finite element models. This paper presents a probabilistic finite element analyses (Abaqus 6.14.2) intended to assess the effects of the average disc height ( hp) and the area ( A) of the annulus fibrosus on the biomechanics of the lumbar spine. The annulus model was loaded under flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation and analyzed for different combinations of hpand A in order to obtain their effects over the range of motion. A set of 50 combinations of hp(mean = 18.1 mm, SD = 3.5 mm) and A (mean = 49.8%, SD = 4.6%) were determined randomly according to a normal distribution. A Yeoh energy function was used for the matrix and an exponential function for the fibers. The range of motion was more sensitive to hpthan to A. With regard to the range of motion the segment was more sensitive in the following order: flexion, axial rotation, extension, and lateral bending. An increase of the hpproduces an increase of the range of motion, but this decreases when A increases. Comparing the range of motion with the experimental data, on average, 56.0% and 73.0% of the total of data were within the experimental range for the L4–L5 and L5–S1 segments, respectively. Further, an analytic equation was derived to obtain the range of motion as a function of the hpand A. This equation can be used to calibrate a finite element model of the spine segment, and also to understand the influence of each geometrical parameter on the range of motion.

scholarly journals Biomechanical Evaluation of Unilateral Versus Bilateral C1 Lateral Mass-C2 Intralaminar Fixation

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nitin Bhatia ◽  
Asheen Rama ◽  
Brandon Sievers ◽  
Ryan Quigley ◽  
Michelle H. McGarry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Biomechanical Properties ◽  
Lateral Mass ◽  
Intact State ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Fixation Techniques ◽  
Rotation Stiffness ◽  
Biomechanical Evaluation ◽  
C2 Fixation

Study Design: Biomechanical, cadaveric study. Objectives: To compare the relative stiffness of unilateral C1 lateral mass-C2 intralaminar fixation to intact specimens and bilateral C1 lateral mass-C2 intralaminar constructs. Methods: The biomechanical integrity of a unilateral C1 lateral mass-C2 intralaminar screw construct was compared to intact specimens and bilateral C1 lateral mass-C2 intralaminar screw constructs. Five human cadaveric specimens were used. Range of motion and stiffness were tested to determine the stiffness of the constructs. Results: Unilateral fixation significantly decreased flexion/extension range of motion compared to intact ( P < .001) but did not significantly affect axial rotation ( P = .3) or bending range of motion ( P = .3). There was a significant decrease in stiffness in extension for both unilateral and bilateral fixation techniques compared to intact ( P = .04 and P = .03, respectively). There was also a significant decrease in stiffness for ipsilateral rotation for the unilateral construct compared to intact ( P = .007) whereas the bilateral construct significantly increased ipsilateral rotation stiffness compared to both intact and unilateral fixation ( P < .001). Conclusion: Bilateral constructs did show improved biomechanical properties compared to the unilateral constructs. However, unilateral C1-C2 fixation using a C1 lateral mass and C2 intralaminar screw-rod construct decreased range of motion and improved stiffness compared to the intact state with the exception of extension and ipsilateral rotation. Hence, a unilateral construct may be acceptable in clinical situations in which bilateral fixation is not possible, but an external orthosis may be necessary to achieve a fusion.

scholarly journals Biomechanical Analysis of an Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Pseudarthrosis Model Revised With Machined Interfacet Allograft Spacers

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 973-981
Author(s):  
Raymond J. Hah ◽  
Ram Alluri ◽  
Paul A. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Anterior Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Single Level ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Potential Applications

Study Design: Biomechanics study. Objectives: To evaluate the biomechanical advantage of interfacet allograft spacers in an unstable single-level and 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) pseudoarthrosis model. Methods: Nine single-level and 8 two-level ACDF constructs were tested. Range of motion in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) at 1.5 N m were collected in 4 testing configurations: (1) intact spine, (2) ACDF with interbody graft and plate/screw, (3) ACDF with interbody graft and plate/loosened screws (loose condition), and (4) ACDF with interbody graft and plate/loosened screws supplemented with interfacet allograft spacers (rescue condition). Results: All fixation configurations resulted in statistically significant decreases in range of motion in all bending planes compared with the intact spine ( P < .05). One Level. Performing ACDF with interbody graft and plate on the intact spine reduced FE, LB, and AR 60.0%, 64.9%, and 72.9%, respectively. Loosening the ACDF screws decreased these reductions to 40.9%, 44.6%, and 52.1%. The addition of interfacet allograft spacers to the loose condition increased these reductions to 74.0%, 84.1%, and 82.1%. Two Level. Performing ACDF with interbody graft and plate on the intact spine reduced FE, LB, and AR 72.0%, 71.1%, and 71.2%, respectively. Loosening the ACDF screws decreased these reductions to 55.4%, 55.3%, and 51.3%. The addition of interfacet allograft spacers to the loose condition significantly increased these reductions to 82.6%, 91.2%, and 89.3% ( P < .05). Conclusions: Supplementation of a loose ACDF construct (pseudarthrosis model) with interfacet allograft spacers significantly increases stability and has potential applications in treating cervical pseudarthrosis.

Biomechanical Consequences of Cervical Spondylectomy Versus Corpectomy

2008 ◽  
Vol 63 (suppl_4) ◽  
pp. ONS303-ONS308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Şeref Doğan ◽  
Seungwon Baek ◽  
Volker K.H. Sonntag ◽  
Neil R. Crawford
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Spinal Stability ◽  
Angular Range ◽  
Anterior Instrumentation ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Cervical Corpectomy ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Anterior Plating

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the differences in spinal stability and stabilizing potential of instrumentation after cervical corpectomy and spondylectomy. Methods: Seven human cadaveric specimens were tested: 1) intact; 2) after grafted C5 corpectomy and anterior C4–C6 plate; 3) after adding posterior C4–C6 screws/rods; 4) after extending posteriorly to C3–C7; 5) after grafted C5 spondylectomy, anterior C4–C6 plate, and posterior C4–C6 screws/rods; and 6) after extending posteriorly to C3–C7. Pure moments induced flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation; angular motion was recorded optically. Results: After corpectomy, anterior plating alone reduced the angular range of motion to a mean of 30% of normal, whereas added posterior short- or long-segment hardware reduced range of motion significantly more (P &lt; 0.003), to less than 5% of normal. Constructs with posterior rods spanning C3–C7 were stiffer than constructs with posterior rods spanning C4–C6 during flexion, extension, and lateral bending (P &lt; 0.05), but not during axial rotation (P &gt; 0.07). Combined anterior and C4–C6 posterior fixation exhibited greater stiffness after corpectomy than after spondylectomy during lateral bending (P = 0.019) and axial rotation (P = 0.001). Combined anterior and C3–C7 posterior fixation exhibited greater stiffness after corpectomy than after spondylectomy during extension (P = 0.030) and axial rotation (P = 0.0001). Conclusion: Circumferential fixation provides more stability than anterior instrumentation alone after cervical corpectomy. After corpectomy or spondylectomy, long circumferential instrumentation provides better stability than short circumferential fixation except during axial rotation. Circumferential fixation more effectively prevents axial rotation after corpectomy than after spondylectomy.

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.

Biomechanical analysis of Goel technique for C1–2 fusion

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 639-646 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Park ◽  
Justin K. Scheer ◽  
T. Jesse Lim ◽  
Vedat Deviren ◽  
Christopher P. Ames
Keyword(s):  
Motion Tracking ◽  
Tracking System ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Rod System ◽  
Harms Technique

Object The Goel technique, in which C1–2 intraarticular spacers are used, may be performed to restore stability to a disrupted atlantoaxial complex in conjunction with the Harms technique of placing polyaxial screws and bilateral rods. However, it has yet to be determined biomechanically whether the addition of the C1–2 joint spacers increases the multiaxial rigidity of the fixation construct. The goal of this study was to quantify changes in multiaxial rigidity of the combined Goel-Harms technique with the addition of C1–2 intraarticular spacers. Methods Seven cadaveric cervical spines (occiput–C2) were submitted to nondestructive flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation tests in a material testing machine spine tester. The authors applied 1.5 Nm at a rate of 0.1 Nm/second and held it constant for 10 seconds. The specimens were loaded 3 times, and data were collected on the third cycle. Testing of the specimens was performed for the following groups: 1) intact (I); 2) with the addition of C-1 lateral mass/C-2 pedicle screws and rod system (I+SR); 3) with C1–2 joint capsule incision, decortication (2 mm on top and bottom of each joint [that is, the C-1 and C-2 surface) and addition of bilateral C1–2 intraarticular spacers at C1–2 junction to the screws and rods (I+SR+C); 4) after removal of the posterior rods and only the bilateral spacers in place (I+C); 5) after removal of spacers and further destabilization with simulated odontoidectomy for a completely destabilized case (D); 6) with addition of posterior rods to the destabilized case (D+SR); and 7) with addition of bilateral C1–2 intraarticular spacers at C1–2 junction to the destabilized case (D+SR+C). The motion of C-1 was measured by a 3D motion tracking system and the motion of C-2 was measured by the rotational sensor of the testing system. The range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ) across C-1 and C-2 were evaluated. Results For the intact spine test groups, the addition of screws/rods (I+SR) and screws/rods/cages (I+SR+C) significantly reduced ROM and NZ compared with the intact spine (I) for flexion-extension and axial rotation (p < 0.05) but not lateral bending (p > 0.05). The 2 groups were not significantly different from each other in any bending mode for ROM and NZ, but in the destabilized condition the addition of screws/rods (D+SR) and screws/rods/cages (D+SR+C) significantly reduced ROM and NZ compared with the destabilized spine (D) in all bending modes (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the addition of the C1–2 intraarticular spacers (D+SR+C) significantly reduced ROM (flexion-extension and axial rotation) and NZ (lateral bending) compared with the screws and rods alone (D+SR). Conclusions Study result indicated that both the Goel and Harms techniques alone and with the addition of the C1–2 intraarticular spacers to the Goel-Harms technique are advantageous for stabilizing the atlantoaxial segment. The Goel technique combined with placement of a screw/rod construct appears to result in additional construct rigidity beyond the screw/rod technique and appears to be more useful in very unstable cases.

scholarly journals Comprehensive biomechanical analysis of three reconstruction techniques following total sacrectomy: an in vitro human cadaveric model

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 570-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Macki ◽  
Rafael De la Garza-Ramos ◽  
Ashley A. Murgatroyd ◽  
Kenneth P. Mullinix ◽  
Xiaolei Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Axial Compression ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Iliac Screws ◽  
Intact Condition ◽  
Cadaveric Model

OBJECTIVEAggressive sacral tumors often require en bloc resection and lumbopelvic reconstruction. Instrumentation failure and pseudarthrosis remain a clinical concern to be addressed. The objective in this study was to compare the biomechanical stability of 3 distinct techniques for sacral reconstruction in vitro.METHODSIn a human cadaveric model study, 8 intact human lumbopelvic specimens (L2–pelvis) were tested for flexion-extension range of motion (ROM), lateral bending, and axial rotation with a custom-designed 6-df spine simulator as well as axial compression stiffness with the MTS 858 Bionix Test System. Biomechanical testing followed this sequence: 1) intact spine; 2) sacrectomy (no testing); 3) Model 1 (L3–5 transpedicular instrumentation plus spinal rods anchored to iliac screws); 4) Model 2 (addition of transiliac rod); and 5) Model 3 (removal of transiliac rod; addition of 2 spinal rods and 2 S-2 screws). Range of motion was measured at L4–5, L5–S1/cross-link, L5–right ilium, and L5–left ilium.RESULTSFlexion-extension ROM of the intact specimen at L4–5 (6.34° ± 2.57°) was significantly greater than in Model 1 (1.54° ± 0.94°), Model 2 (1.51° ± 1.01°), and Model 3 (0.72° ± 0.62°) (p < 0.001). Flexion-extension at both the L5–right ilium (2.95° ± 1.27°) and the L5–left ilium (2.87° ± 1.40°) for Model 3 was significantly less than the other 3 cohorts at the same level (p = 0.005 and p = 0.012, respectively). Compared with the intact condition, all 3 reconstruction groups statistically significantly decreased lateral bending ROM at all measured points. Axial rotation ROM at L4–5 for Model 1 (2.01° ± 1.39°), Model 2 (2.00° ± 1.52°), and Model 3 (1.15° ± 0.80°) was significantly lower than the intact condition (5.02° ± 2.90°) (p < 0.001). Moreover, axial rotation for the intact condition and Model 3 at L5–right ilium (2.64° ± 1.36° and 2.93° ± 1.68°, respectively) and L5–left ilium (2.58° ± 1.43° and 2.93° ± 1.71°, respectively) was significantly lower than for Model 1 and Model 2 at L5–right ilium (5.14° ± 2.48° and 4.95° ± 2.45°, respectively) (p = 0.036) and L5–left ilium (5.19° ± 2.34° and 4.99° ± 2.31°) (p = 0.022). Last, results of the axial compression testing at all measured points were not statistically different among reconstructions.CONCLUSIONSThe addition of a transverse bar in Model 2 offered no biomechanical advantage. Although the implementation of 4 iliac screws and 4 rods conferred a definitive kinematic advantage in Model 3, that model was associated with significantly restricted lumbopelvic ROM.

scholarly journals Biomechanical Comparison of Lumbar Motion Unit Stability Following Posterior Instrumentation with Facet Spacers and Facet Screws

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 220-229
Author(s):  
Mu-Yi Liu ◽  
Tsung-Ting Tsai ◽  
Lih-Huei Chen ◽  
Wen-Huang Liang ◽  
Po-Liang Lai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Posterior Instrumentation ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Spacer Group ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Fixation Techniques ◽  
Screw Group ◽  
Lumbar Motion

Abstract Purpose Lumbar posterior instrumentation for facet stabilization has become popular for the treatment of lumbar instability. The present study investigated and compared facet stabilization following lumbar posterior instrumentation with facet spacers and facet screws using porcine lumbar spines. Methods Eighteen L5–L6 lumbar motion units (LMUs) of the porcine spines were randomly divided into three groups (un-instrumented, facet-spacer and facet-screw). In the un-instrumented group (control), all ligamentous structures were preserved. In the facet-spacer group, two facet spacers were inserted into the joint spaces of the bilateral upper and lower facets. In the facet-screw group, two cannulated screws were used to transfix the bilateral upper and lower facets. With the use of a material testing machine, a gradually increasing moment of up to 6000 N-mm was generated in flexion, extension, lateral bending and torsion motions to compare facet stabilization among the groups. Results The facet-spacer group was significantly stiffer than the facet-screw group in extension (p = 0.013), whereas the facet-screw group was significantly stiffer than the facet-spacer group in axial rotation (p = 0.004). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two fixation techniques in flexion (p = 0.284) and lateral bending (p = 0.085). Conclusion Both facet-spacer and facet-screw fixation techniques significantly improve stability in a single LMU. Facet-spacer fixation provided better stabilization in extension, while facet-screw fixation provided better stabilization in axial rotation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document