Literature DB >> 16429291

Influence of a dynamic stabilisation system on load bearing of a bridged disc: an in vitro study of intradiscal pressure.

W Schmoelz1, J F Huber, T Nydegger, L Claes, H J Wilke.   

Abstract

In recent years, non-fusion implants to stabilise the lumbar spine have become more and more popular. However, little is known on the load bearing of such dynamic stabilisation systems. In order to investigate the load bearing of discs bridged with rigid and dynamic stabilisation systems, six lumbar cadaver spines were mounted in a spine tester and loaded with pure moments in the three main motion planes. Four different states of the specimens were studied: intact, destabilised, stabilisation with a Dynesys and stabilisation with an internal fixator. Intradiscal pressure (IDP) measurements were used to assess the load bearing of the bridged disc. In the neutral unloaded position, there were small but not significant differences in disc pressure for the four states of the treated disc (P>0.05). Concerning the disc pressure during the course of loading, both the Dynesys and internal fixator did significantly reduce the pressure change from neutral to extension in comparison to the intact state (-0.05, -0.04 and +0.24 MPa, respectively) (P<0.05). Compared to the intact state, there was no significant pressure change from neutral to flexion (0.14, 0.15 and 0.18 MPa, respectively) (P>0.05). The devices apparently eliminated the pressure change from neutral to lateral bending (Dynesys 0.01 MPa, Fixator 0.01 MPa and intact 0.24 MPa), but due to large variations in the intact and defect states the differences were not significant (P>0.05). In axial rotation, the pressure change for the internal fixator was reduced compared to the intact state; however, the change was only significant in left axial rotation (P<0.05). The Dynesys showed no significant differences (P>0.05) in axial rotation. No changes in IDP were seen in the adjacent discs for either the Dynesys or the internal fixator. Our results showed that the IDPs for both devices were similar, but altered compared to the intact disc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16429291      PMCID: PMC3233955          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-005-0032-5

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


  39 in total

1.  Posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective study of complications after facet joint excision and pedicle screw fixation in 148 cases.

Authors:  K Okuyama; E Abe; T Suzuki; Y Tamura; M Chiba; K Sato
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1999-08

2.  Effect of an internal fixator and a bone graft on intersegmental spinal motion and intradiscal pressure in the adjacent regions.

Authors:  A Rohlmann; S Neller; G Bergmann; F Graichen; L Claes; H J Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Effect of a prosthetic disc nucleus on the mobility and disc height of the L4-5 intervertebral disc postnucleotomy.

Authors:  H J Wilke; S Kavanagh; S Neller; C Haid; L E Claes
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 5.115

4.  Is it possible to simulate physiologic loading conditions by applying pure moments? A comparison of in vivo and in vitro load components in an internal fixator.

Authors:  H J Wilke; A Rohlmann; S Neller; M Schultheiss; G Bergmann; F Graichen; L E Claes
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  In vivo intradiscal pressure measurement in healthy individuals and in patients with ongoing back problems.

Authors:  K Sato; S Kikuchi; T Yonezawa
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion. A cadaveric study.

Authors:  S L Weinhoffer; R D Guyer; M Herbert; S L Griffith
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  A universal spine tester for in vitro experiments with muscle force simulation.

Authors:  H J Wilke; L Claes; H Schmitt; S Wolf
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion.

Authors:  M N Kumar; A Baklanov; D Chopin
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  The Graf stabilisation system: early results in 50 patients.

Authors:  M P Grevitt; A D Gardner; J Spilsbury; I M Shackleford; R Baskerville; L M Pursell; A Hassaan; R C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of disc degeneration 10 years after anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  M Penta; A Sandhu; R D Fraser
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  38 in total

1.  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

2.  [Long-term results of the Dynesys implant].

Authors:  C Klöckner
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  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

4.  [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

5.  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

6.  Comparative biomechanical investigation of a modular dynamic lumbar stabilization system and the Dynesys system.

Authors:  Philippe Gédet; Daniel Haschtmann; Paul A Thistlethwaite; Stephen J Ferguson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  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

8.  [Effect of lumbar hybrid instrumentation and rigid fusion on the treated and the adjacent segments. A biomechanical study].

Authors:  B Wiedenhöfer; M Akbar; C H Fürstenberg; C Carstens; S Hemmer; C Schilling
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 9.  Limitations of current in vitro test protocols for investigation of instrumented adjacent segment biomechanics: critical analysis of the literature.

Authors:  David Volkheimer; Masoud Malakoutian; Thomas R Oxland; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  [Current short- and long-term results of lumbar disc replacement : update 2008].

Authors:  B Wiedenhöfer; V Ewerbeck; A J Suda; C Carstens
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 0.955

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.