Literature DB >> 16217663

Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system: an in vitro study.

Christina A Niosi1, Qingan A Zhu, Derek C Wilson, Ory Keynan, David R Wilson, Thomas R Oxland.   

Abstract

The Dynesys, a flexible posterior stabilization system that provides an alternative to fusion, is designed to preserve intersegmental kinematics and alleviate loading at the facet joints. Recent biomechanical evidence suggests that the overall range of motion (ROM) with the Dynesys is less than the intact spine. The purpose of this investigation was to conduct a comprehensive characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys and determine if the length of the Dynesys polymer spacer contributes to differences in the kinematic behaviour at the implanted level. Ten cadaveric lumbar spine segments (L2-L5) were tested by applying a pure moment of +/-7.5 Nm in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, with and without a follower preload of 600 N. Test conditions included: (a) intact; (b) injury; (c) injury stabilized with Dynesys at L3-L4 (standard spacer); (d) long spacer (+2 mm); and (e) short spacer (-2 mm). Intervertebral rotations were measured using an optoelectronic camera system. The intersegmental range of motion (ROM), neutral zone (NZ), and three-dimensional helical axis of motion (HAM) were calculated. Statistical significance of changes in ROM, NZ, and HAM was determined using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Student-Newman-Keuls post-hoc analysis with P<0.05. Implantation of the standard length Dynesys significantly reduced ROM compared to the intact and injured specimens, with the least significant changes seen in axial rotation. Injury typically increased the NZ, but implantation of the Dynesys restored the NZ to a magnitude less that that of the intact spine. The Dynesys produced a significant posterior shift in the HAM in flexion-extension and axial rotation. The spacer length had a significant effect on ROM with the long spacer resulting in the largest ROM in all loading directions without a follower preload. The largest differences were in axial rotation. A 4 mm increase in spacer length led to an average intersegmental motion increase of 30% in axial rotation, 23% in extension, 14% in flexion, and 11% in lateral bending. There were no significant changes in NZ with different spacer lengths. Typically, the short spacer caused a greater shift and a greater change in orientation of the HAM than the long spacer. The long spacer resulted in a ROM and a motion pattern, as represented by the HAM, that was closer to that seen in an intact specimen. The results of this study suggest that the length of the Dynesys spacer altered the segmental position and therefore affected kinematic behaviour.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16217663      PMCID: PMC3489456          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-005-0948-9

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


  22 in total

1.  Dynamic neutralisation of the lumbar spine confirmed on a new lumbar spine simulator in vitro.

Authors:  S Freudiger; G Dubois; M Lorrain
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 3.067

2.  The external spinal fixator does not reduce anterior column motion under axial compressive loads. A mechanical in vitro study.

Authors:  T Lund; G Rathonyi; D Schlenzka; T R Oxland
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1999-02

3.  A follower load increases the load-carrying capacity of the lumbar spine in compression.

Authors:  A G Patwardhan; R M Havey; K P Meade; B Lee; B Dunlap
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Community studies of the health service implications of low back pain.

Authors:  M E McKinnon; M R Vickers; V M Ruddock; J Townsend; T W Meade
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-09-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Three-dimensional movements of the whole lumbar spine and lumbosacral joint.

Authors:  I Yamamoto; M M Panjabi; T Crisco; T Oxland
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbosacral fusions.

Authors:  J D Schlegel; J A Smith; R L Schleusener
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Disc degeneration affects the multidirectional flexibility of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  M Mimura; M M Panjabi; T R Oxland; J J Crisco; I Yamamoto; A Vasavada
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Finite centroid and helical axis estimation from noisy landmark measurements in the study of human joint kinematics.

Authors:  H J Woltring; R Huiskes; A de Lange; F E Veldpaus
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 2.712

9.  A technique for measurement and description of three-dimensional six degree-of-freedom motion of a body joint with an application to the human spine.

Authors:  M M Panjabi; M H Krag; V K Goel
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1981       Impact factor: 2.712

10.  Mechanical behavior of the human lumbar and lumbosacral spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves.

Authors:  M M Panjabi; T R Oxland; I Yamamoto; J J Crisco
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  47 in total

1.  Biomechanical evaluation of a posterior non-fusion instrumentation of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Werner Schmoelz; Stefanie Erhart; Stefan Unger; Alexander C Disch
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-12-20       Impact factor: 3.134

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

Authors:  Patrick Strube; Stephan Tohtz; Eike Hoff; Christian Gross; Carsten Perka; Michael Putzier
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-08-04       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Biomechanical evaluation of posterior lumbar dynamic stabilization: an in vitro comparison between Universal Clamp and Wallis systems.

Authors:  Brice Ilharreborde; Miranda N Shaw; Lawrence J Berglund; Kristin D Zhao; Ralph E Gay; Kai-Nan An
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-12-04       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  The effect of design parameters of dynamic pedicle screw systems on kinematics and load bearing: an in vitro study.

Authors:  C Schilling; S Krüger; T M Grupp; G N Duda; W Blömer; A Rohlmann
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-11-26       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  [Dynamic posterior stabilization with the pedicle screw system DYNESYS®].

Authors:  Othmar Schwarzenbach; Ulrich Berlemann
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 1.154

6.  Biomechanical Comparison of Robotically Applied Pure Moment, Ideal Follower Load, and Novel Trunk Weight Loading Protocols on L4-L5 Cadaveric Segments during Flexion-Extension.

Authors:  Charles R Bennett; Denis J DiAngelo; Brian P Kelly
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-17

7.  Advanced Multi-Axis Spine Testing: Clinical Relevance and Research Recommendations.

Authors:  Timothy P Holsgrove; Nikhil R Nayak; William C Welch; Beth A Winkelstein
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-17

8.  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

9.  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

10.  Kinematic evaluation of one- and two-level Maverick lumbar total disc replacement caudal to a long thoracolumbar spinal fusion.

Authors:  Qingan Zhu; Eyal Itshayek; Claire F Jones; Timothy Schwab; Chadwick R Larson; Lawrence G Lenke; Peter A Cripton
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-04-25       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.