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

被引:51
|
作者
Strube, Patrick [1 ]
Tohtz, Stephan [1 ]
Hoff, Eike [1 ]
Gross, Christian [1 ]
Perka, Carsten [1 ]
Putzier, Michael [1 ]
机构
[1] Charite, Ctr Musculoskeletal Surg, Clin Orthopaed, D-10117 Berlin, Germany
关键词
Biomechanical evaluation; Dynamic stabilization; Adjacent segment degeneration; Lumbar circumferential fusion; Segment instability; Low back pain; IN-VITRO; SEGMENT DEGENERATION; LUMBOSACRAL FUSION; FOLLOW-UP; INTRADISCAL PRESSURE; ARTIFICIAL LIGAMENT; INTERBODY FUSION; INSTRUMENTATION; FIXATION; SYSTEM;
D O I
10.1007/s00586-010-1549-9
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:2171 / 2180
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Biomechanics of adjacent segment after three-level lumbar fusion, hybrid single-level semi-rigid fixation with two-level lumbar fusion
    Zhang, Mingzheng
    Ren, Weiyan
    Mo, Zhongjun
    Li, Jian
    Pu, Fang
    Fan, Yubo
    COMPUTER METHODS IN BIOMECHANICS AND BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, 2022, 25 (04) : 455 - 463
  • [22] The Influence of Pelvic Incidence and Lumbar Lordosis Mismatch on Development of Symptomatic Adjacent Level Disease Following Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Tempel, Zachary J.
    Gandhoke, Gurpreet S.
    Bolinger, Bryan D.
    Khattar, Nicolas K.
    Parry, Philip V.
    Chang, Yue-Fang
    Okonkwo, David O.
    Kanter, Adam S.
    NEUROSURGERY, 2017, 80 (06) : 880 - 885
  • [23] In vitro biomechanical comparison of an anterior and anterolateral lumbar plate with posterior fixation following single-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion
    Johnson, Wesley M.
    Nichols, Tann A.
    Jethwani, Deepika
    Guiot, Bernard H.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2007, 7 (03) : 332 - 335
  • [24] Biomechanical comparison of single-level posterior versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions with bilateral pedicle screw fixation: segmental stability and the effects on adjacent motion segments Laboratory investigation
    Sim, Hong Bo
    Murovic, Judith A.
    Cho, Bo Young
    Lim, T. Jesse
    Park, Jon
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2010, 12 (06) : 700 - 708
  • [25] Commentary: The Influence of Pelvic Incidence and Lumbar Lordosis Mismatch on Development of Symptomatic Adjacent Level Disease Following Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Glassman, Steven D.
    NEUROSURGERY, 2017, 80 (06) : 887 - 887
  • [26] Decompression alone or fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis? A systematic review and meta analysis
    Cheng, Haiyang
    Luo, Gan
    Xu, Dan
    Li, Yuqiao
    Yang, Houzhi
    Cao, Sheng
    Sun, Tianwei
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2024, 25 (01)
  • [27] Neuromechanical characterization of in vivo lumbar spinal manipulation. Part I. Vertebral motion
    Keller, TS
    Colloca, CJ
    Gunzburg, R
    JOURNAL OF MANIPULATIVE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL THERAPEUTICS, 2003, 26 (09) : 567 - 578
  • [28] Psychological and Functional Comparison between Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
    Yu, Bin
    Zhang, Jin
    Pan, Jie
    Wang, Yizhou
    Chen, YingGao
    Zhao, Weidong
    Wu, Desheng
    ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, 2021, 13 (04) : 1213 - 1226
  • [29] The biomechanical effect of single-level laminectomy and posterior instrumentation on spinal stability in degenerative lumbar scoliosis: a human cadaveric study
    Rustenburg, Christine M. E.
    Faraj, Sayf S. A.
    Holewijn, Roderick M.
    Kingma, Idsart
    van Royen, Barend J.
    Stadhouder, Agnita
    Emanuel, Kaj S.
    NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2019, 46 (05)
  • [30] Biomechanical effects of hybrid stabilization on the risk of proximal adjacent-segment degeneration following lumbar spinal fusion using an interspinous device or a pedicle screw-based dynamic fixator
    Lee, Chang-Hyun
    Kim, Young Eun
    Lee, Hak Joong
    Kim, Dong Gyu
    Kim, Chi Heon
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2017, 27 (06) : 643 - 649