Biomechanical Evaluation of a Posterior Non-fusion Instrumentation of the Lumbar Spine

Overview

Journal Eur Spine J

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2011 Dec 30

PMID 22205112

Citations 14

Authors

Werner Schmoelz

Stefanie Erhart

Stefan Unger

Alexander C Disch

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Numerous posterior non-fusion systems have been developed within the past decade to resolve the disadvantages of rigid instrumentations and preserve spinal motion. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a new dynamic stabilization device, to measure the screw anchorage after flexibility testing and compare it with data reported in the literature.

Methods: Six human lumbar spine motion segments (L2-5) were loaded in a spine tester with pure moments of 7.5 Nm in lateral bending, flexion/extension and axial rotation. Specimens were tested intact, after instrumentation of the intact segment, after destabilization by a nucleotomy and after instrumentation of the destabilised segment with the new non-fusion device (Elaspine). After flexibility testing all screws were subjected to a pull-out test.

Results: Instrumentation of the intact segment significantly reduced the RoM (p < 0.002) in flexion, extension and lateral bending to 49.7, 44.6 and 53% of the intact state, respectively. In axial rotation, the instrumentation resulted in a non-significant RoM reduction to 95% of the intact state. Compared to the intact segment, instrumentation of the destabilized segment significantly (p < 0.05) reduced the RoM to 69.8, 62.3 and 79.1% in flexion, extension and lateral bending, respectively. In axial rotation, the instrumented segment showed a significantly higher RoM than the intact segment (137.6% of the intact state (p < 0.01)). The pull-out test showed a maximum pull-out force of 855.1 N (±334) with a displacement of 6.1 mm (±2.8) at maximum pull-out force.

Conclusions: The effect of the investigated motion preservation device on the RoM of treated segments is in the range of other devices reported in the literature. Compared to the most implanted and investigated device, the Dynesys, the Elaspine has a less pronounced motion restricting effect in lateral bending and flexion/extension, while being less effective in limiting axial rotation. The pull-out force of the pedicle screws demonstrated anchorage comparable to other screw designs reported in the literature.

Citing Articles

The biomechanical effects of treating double-segment lumbar degenerative diseases with unilateral fixation through interlaminar fenestration interbody fusion surgery: a three-dimensional finite element study.

Feng K, Xiang X, Li C, Gao K, Zhang W, Nie Z BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2025; 26(1):40.

PMID: 39794739 PMC: 11724487. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-025-08287-7.

Comparison of the Fixation Strengths of Screws between the Traditional Trajectory and the Single and Double Endplate Penetrating Screw Trajectories Using Osteoporotic Vertebral Body Models Based on the Finite Element Method.

Takeuchi T, Takamizawa Y, Konishi K, Sano H, Takahashi M, Kouno H Asian Spine J. 2024; 18(1):12-20.

PMID: 38379149 PMC: 10910145. DOI: 10.31616/asj.2023.0238.

Invasiveness of decompression surgery affects modeled lumbar spine kinetics in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Kosterhon M, Muller A, Rockenfeller R, Aiyangar A, Gruber K, Ringel F Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024; 11:1281119.

PMID: 38260753 PMC: 10801739. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1281119.

Biomechanical in vitro evaluation of the kangaroo spine in comparison with human spinal data.

Wilke H, Betz V, Kienle A J Anat. 2023; 243(1):128-137.

PMID: 36929138 PMC: 10273331. DOI: 10.1111/joa.13852.

A posterior-only approach for treatment of severe adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with pedicle screw fixation: A case series.

Gatam L, Luthfi A, Fachrisal , Phedy , Rizki Gatam A, Djaja Y Int J Surg Case Rep. 2020; 77:39-44.

PMID: 33137670 PMC: 7610025. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2020.10.072.

References

Bozkus H, Senoglu M, Baek S, Sawa A, Ozer A, Sonntag V . Dynamic lumbar pedicle screw-rod stabilization: in vitro biomechanical comparison with standard rigid pedicle screw-rod stabilization. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010; 12(2):183-9. DOI: 10.3171/2009.9.SPINE0951. View

Khoueir P, Kim K, Wang M . Classification of posterior dynamic stabilization devices. Neurosurg Focus. 2007; 22(1):E3. DOI: 10.3171/foc.2007.22.1.3. View

Meyers K, Tauber M, Sudin Y, Fleischer S, Arnin U, Girardi F . Use of instrumented pedicle screws to evaluate load sharing in posterior dynamic stabilization systems. Spine J. 2007; 8(6):926-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.08.008. View

Wilke H, Heuer F, Schmidt H . Prospective design delineation and subsequent in vitro evaluation of a new posterior dynamic stabilization system. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(3):255-61. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181920e9c. View

Hilibrand A, Robbins M . Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion?. Spine J. 2004; 4(6 Suppl):190S-194S. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.007. View

Schilling C, Kruger S, Grupp T, Duda G, Blomer W, Rohlmann A . The effect of design parameters of dynamic pedicle screw systems on kinematics and load bearing: an in vitro study. Eur Spine J. 2010; 20(2):297-307. PMC: 3030714. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1620-6. View

Scifert J, Sairyo K, Goel V, Grobler L, Grosland N, Spratt K . Stability analysis of an enhanced load sharing posterior fixation device and its equivalent conventional device in a calf spine model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999; 24(21):2206-13. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199911010-00006. View

Gedet P, Haschtmann D, Thistlethwaite P, Ferguson S . Comparative biomechanical investigation of a modular dynamic lumbar stabilization system and the Dynesys system. Eur Spine J. 2009; 18(10):1504-11. PMC: 2899384. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1077-7. View

Schulte T, Hurschler C, Haversath M, Liljenqvist U, Bullmann V, Filler T . The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants on the range of motion of lumbar motion segments after decompression. Eur Spine J. 2008; 17(8):1057-65. PMC: 2518758. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-008-0667-0. View

10.

Masaki T, Sasao Y, Miura T, Torii Y, Kojima A, Aoki H . An experimental study on initial fixation strength in transpedicular screwing augmented with calcium phosphate cement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(20):E724-8. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181adc0e9. View

11.

Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A . 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(23):2521-32; discussion 2532-4. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200112010-00002. View

12.

Ianuzzi A, Kurtz S, Kane W, Shah P, Siskey R, van Ooij A . In vivo deformation, surface damage, and biostability of retrieved Dynesys systems. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(23):E1310-6. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d6f84f. View

13.

Panjabi M, Henderson G, James Y, Timm J . StabilimaxNZ) versus simulated fusion: evaluation of adjacent-level effects. Eur Spine J. 2007; 16(12):2159-65. PMC: 2140135. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-007-0444-5. View

14.

Niosi C, Zhu Q, Wilson D, Keynan O, Wilson D, Oxland T . Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system: an in vitro study. Eur Spine J. 2005; 15(6):913-22. PMC: 3489456. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-005-0948-9. View

15.

Bullmann V, Schmoelz W, Richter M, Grathwohl C, Schulte T . Revision of cannulated and perforated cement-augmented pedicle screws: a biomechanical study in human cadavers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(19):E932-9. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c6ec60. View

16.

Gibson J, Waddell G . Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane Review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(20):2312-20. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000182315.88558.9c. View

17.

Wilke H, Wenger K, Claes L . Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J. 1998; 7(2):148-54. PMC: 3611233. DOI: 10.1007/s005860050045. View

18.

Panjabi M . Biomechanical evaluation of spinal fixation devices: I. A conceptual framework. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988; 13(10):1129-34. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-198810000-00013. View

19.

Disch A, Schmoelz W, Matziolis G, Schneider S, Knop C, Putzier M . Higher risk of adjacent segment degeneration after floating fusions: long-term outcome after low lumbar spine fusions. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008; 21(2):79-85. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3180577259. View

20.

Andersson G . Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet. 1999; 354(9178):581-5. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)01312-4. View