Literature DB >> 12384745

Rationale, principles and experimental evaluation of the concept of soft stabilization.

Robert C Mulholland1, Dilip K Sengupta.   

Abstract

The apparent clinical success of spinal stabilization methods that restrict rather than abolish movement in relieving mechanical back pain indicates that the concept of the aetiology of back pain should be reviewed. Further understanding of how degeneration affects disc biomechanics, and an understanding of how current soft stabilization systems alters them, may allow us to define more precisely what are the essential requirements of an ideal soft stabilization system. It appears that abnormal patterns of loading rather than abnormal movement are the reason that disc degeneration causes back pain in some patients. Abnormal load transmission is the principal cause of pain in osteoarthritic joints, and both osteotomy and, indeed, joint replacement succeed because they alter the load transmission across the joint. This concept is supported by the fact that abnormal patterns of stress distribution measured across the disc correlate with painful discs on discography. Clinically, it is often noted that back pain is primarily related to position or posture, rather than movement of the lumbar spine. Clinical success after solid fusion is unpredictable because it does not necessarily prevent painful loading across the disc, and also it may interfere with maintenance of sagittal balance in varying postures. The Graf ligament restricted flexion, and was modestly successful. It unfortunately increased the load over the posterior annulus. The Dynesys system reduces movement both in flexion and extension, and appears to be more successful. However, often it also unloads the disc to a degree that is unpredictable. The authors believe that this unloading of the disc is an important feature of a flexible stabilization system. A new a design of a flexible stabilization system has recently been described in an in vitro study, which unloads the disc by introduction of a load-sharing fulcrum near the axis of movement together with an elastic posterior ligament. This design produces maximal unloading of the disc, whilst allowing a restricted range of movement, which serves the important purpose of allowing the patient to maintain sagittal balance in varying postures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12384745      PMCID: PMC3611578          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-002-0422-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  45 in total

Review 1.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2011.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-12-30       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Prospective study of a new dynamic stabilisation system in the treatment of degenerative discopathy and instability of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  A Zagra; L Minoia; M Archetti; A S Corriero; K Ricci; M Teli; F Giudici
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  [Longterm results of the interspinous spacer X-STOP].

Authors:  A Reinhardt; S Hufnagel
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  [Long-term results, status of studies and differential indication regarding the DIAM implant].

Authors:  F A Krappel
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  The effect of design parameters of interspinous implants on kinematics and load bearing: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Christoph Schilling; M Pfeiffer; T M Grupp; W Blömer; A Rohlmann
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Clinical and biomechanical researches of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rods for semi-rigid lumbar fusion: a systematic review.

Authors:  Chan Li; Lei Liu; Jian-Yong Shi; Kai-Zhong Yan; Wei-Zhong Shen; Zhen-Rong Yang
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 3.042

7.  Comparison of the effects of bilateral posterior dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Antonius Rohlmann; Nagananda K Burra; Thomas Zander; Georg Bergmann
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-01-06       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Adjacent segment instability after treatment with a Graf ligament at minimum 8 years' followup.

Authors:  Yongsoo Choi; Kisoo Kim; Kwangyoung So
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-05-19       Impact factor: 4.176

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

Authors:  Chien-Lin Liu; Zheng-Cheng Zhong; Hung-Wei Hsu; Shih-Liang Shih; Shih-Tien Wang; Chinghua Hung; Chen-Sheng Chen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-04-27       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  A prospective randomized multi-center study for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with the X STOP interspinous implant: 1-year results.

Authors:  J F Zucherman; K Y Hsu; C A Hartjen; T F Mehalic; D A Implicito; M J Martin; D R Johnson; G A Skidmore; P P Vessa; J W Dwyer; S Puccio; J C Cauthen; R M Ozuna
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-12-19       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.