Literature DB >> 17924151

StabilimaxNZ) versus simulated fusion: evaluation of adjacent-level effects.

Manohar M Panjabi1, Gweneth Henderson, Yue James, Jens Peter Timm.   

Abstract

Rationale behind motion preservation devices is to eliminate the accelerated adjacent-level effects (ALE) associated with spinal fusion. We evaluated multidirectional flexibilities and ALEs of StabilimaxNZ and simulated fusion applied to a decompressed spine. StabilimaxNZ was applied at L4-L5 after creating a decompression (laminectomy of L4 plus bilateral medial facetectomy at L4-L5). Multidirectional Flexibility and Hybrid tests were performed on six fresh cadaveric human specimens (T12-S1). Decompression increased average flexion-extension rotation to 124.0% of the intact. StabilimaxNZ and simulated fusion decreased the motion to 62.4 and 23.8% of intact, respectively. In lateral bending, corresponding increase was 121.6% and decreases were 57.5 and 11.9%. In torsion, corresponding increase was 132.7%, and decreases were 36.3% for fusion, and none for StabilimaxNZ ALE was defined as percentage increase over the intact. The ALE at L3-4 was 15.3% for StabilimaxNZ versus 33.4% for fusion, while at L5-S1 the ALE were 5.0% vs. 11.3%, respectively. In lateral bending, the corresponding ALE values were 3.0% vs. 19.1%, and 11.3% vs. 35.8%, respectively. In torsion, the corresponding values were 3.7% vs. 20.6%, and 4.0% vs. 33.5%, respectively. In conclusion, this in vitro study using Flexibility and Hybrid test methods showed that StabilimaxNZ stabilized the decompressed spinal level effectively in sagittal and frontal planes, while allowing a good portion of the normal rotation, and concurrently it did not produce significant ALEs as compared to the fusion. However, it did not stabilize the decompressed specimen in torsion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17924151      PMCID: PMC2140135          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-007-0444-5

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


  18 in total

1.  Effect of compressive follower preload on the flexion-extension response of the human lumbar spine.

Authors:  Avinash G Patwardhan; Robert M Havey; Gerard Carandang; James Simonds; Leonard I Voronov; Alexander J Ghanayem; Kevin P Meade; Thomas M Gavin; Odysseas Paxinos
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.494

2.  Multidirectional stabilizing potential of BAK interbody spinal fusion system for anterior surgery.

Authors:  K Nibu; M M Panjabi; T Oxland; J Cholewicki
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  1997-08

3.  Estimates and patterns of direct health care expenditures among individuals with back pain in the United States.

Authors:  Xuemei Luo; Ricardo Pietrobon; Shawn X Sun; Gordon G Liu; Lloyd Hey
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Biomechanical evaluation of lumbar spinal stability after graded facetectomies.

Authors:  K Abumi; M M Panjabi; K M Kramer; J Duranceau; T Oxland; J J Crisco
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Hybrid testing of lumbar CHARITE discs versus fusions.

Authors:  Manohar Panjabi; George Malcolmson; Edward Teng; Yasuhiro Tominaga; Gweneth Henderson; Hassan Serhan
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-04-20       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.  Flexibility analysis of posterolateral fusions in a New Zealand white rabbit model.

Authors:  J S Erulkar; J N Grauer; T C Patel; M M Panjabi
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Biomechanical evaluation of spinal fixation devices: I. A conceptual framework.

Authors:  M M Panjabi
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Biomechanical evaluation of lumbosacral reconstruction techniques for spondylolisthesis: an in vitro porcine model.

Authors:  Bryan W Cunningham; Stephen J Lewis; John Long; Anton E Dmitriev; Douglas A Linville; Keith H Bridwell
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  A retrospective radiographic analysis of subaxial sagittal alignment after posterior C1-C2 fusion.

Authors:  Hisashi Yoshimoto; Manabu Ito; Kuniyoshi Abumi; Yoshihisa Kotani; Yasuhiro Shono; Takashige Takada; Akio Minami
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-01-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  9 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.  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

3.  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

Review 4.  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

5.  Biomechanical analysis of cervical range of motion and facet contact force after a novel artificial cervical disc replacement.

Authors:  Kangkang Huang; Tingkui Wu; Beiyu Wang; Hao Liu
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2019-10-15       Impact factor: 4.060

6.  Non-fusion instrumentation of the lumbar spine with a hinged pedicle screw rod system: an in vitro experiment.

Authors:  Werner Schmoelz; U Onder; A Martin; A von Strempel
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-06-06       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Parametric and cadaveric models of lumbar flexion instability and flexion restricting dynamic stabilization system.

Authors:  Louis C Fielding; Todd F Alamin; Leonard I Voronov; Gerard Carandang; Robert M Havey; Avinash G Patwardhan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-08-17       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Hybrid Instrumentation in Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Biomechanical Evaluation of Three Different Instrumentation Techniques.

Authors:  Peter Obid; Reza Danyali; Rebecca Kueny; Gerd Huber; Michael Reichl; Alexander Richter; Thomas Niemeyer; Michael Morlock; Klaus Püschel; Hüseyin Übeyli
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-02-01

9.  Effects of cord pretension and stiffness of the Dynesys system spacer on the biomechanics of spinal decompression- a finite element study.

Authors:  Shih-Liang Shih; Chien-Lin Liu; Li-Ying Huang; Chang-Hung Huang; Chen-Sheng Chen
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2013-06-19       Impact factor: 2.362

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.