BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Dynamic stabilization is an alternative to fusion intended to eliminate or at least minimize the potential for adjacent level degeneration. Different design approaches are used in pedicle screw-based systems that should have very different effects on the loading of the posterior column and intervertebral disc. If the implant system distributes these loads more evenly, loads in the pedicle screws will be reduced, and screw loosening will be prevented. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine how two different design approaches to dynamic stabilization systems, Dynesys System and the Total Posterior Spine (TOPS) System, affect the load carried by the pedicle screws. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: A controlled laboratory study in which the magnitude of the moments on pedicle screws during flexion-extension and lateral bending were measured after implantation of two posterior dynamic stabilization devices into cadaveric spines. METHODS: Five lumbar spines were tested in flexion-extension and lateral bending. Specimens were tested sequentially: first intact, then with the Dynesys system implanted, and finally with the TOPS system implanted. Range of motion (ROM) for each construct was measured with a 210N and 630N compressive load. The pedicle screws were instrumented with strain gages, which were calibrated so that the moments on the screws could be determined from the strain measurements. RESULTS: Compared with intact values, ROM decreased in flexion-extension and lateral bending when the Dynesys System was implanted. With implantation of the TOPS System, ROM returned to values that were not significantly different from the intact values. The moments in the screws with the Dynesys System were significantly higher than with the TOPS System with increases of as much as 56% in flexion-extension and 86% in lateral bending. CONCLUSIONS: The design of the posterior stabilization device influences the amount of load seen by the pedicle screws and therefore the load sharing between spinal implant and bone.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Dynamic stabilization is an alternative to fusion intended to eliminate or at least minimize the potential for adjacent level degeneration. Different design approaches are used in pedicle screw-based systems that should have very different effects on the loading of the posterior column and intervertebral disc. If the implant system distributes these loads more evenly, loads in the pedicle screws will be reduced, and screw loosening will be prevented. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine how two different design approaches to dynamic stabilization systems, Dynesys System and the Total Posterior Spine (TOPS) System, affect the load carried by the pedicle screws. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: A controlled laboratory study in which the magnitude of the moments on pedicle screws during flexion-extension and lateral bending were measured after implantation of two posterior dynamic stabilization devices into cadaveric spines. METHODS: Five lumbar spines were tested in flexion-extension and lateral bending. Specimens were tested sequentially: first intact, then with the Dynesys system implanted, and finally with the TOPS system implanted. Range of motion (ROM) for each construct was measured with a 210N and 630N compressive load. The pedicle screws were instrumented with strain gages, which were calibrated so that the moments on the screws could be determined from the strain measurements. RESULTS: Compared with intact values, ROM decreased in flexion-extension and lateral bending when the Dynesys System was implanted. With implantation of the TOPS System, ROM returned to values that were not significantly different from the intact values. The moments in the screws with the Dynesys System were significantly higher than with the TOPS System with increases of as much as 56% in flexion-extension and 86% in lateral bending. CONCLUSIONS: The design of the posterior stabilization device influences the amount of load seen by the pedicle screws and therefore the load sharing between spinal implant and bone.
Authors: Angela D Melnyk; Jason D Chak; Vaneet Singh; Adrienne Kelly; Peter A Cripton; Charles G Fisher; Marcel F Dvorak; Thomas R Oxland Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Cengiz Gomleksiz; Deniz Ufuk Erbulut; Halil Can; Manoj Kumar Kodigudla; Amey V Kelkar; Eser Kasapoglu; Ali Fahir Ozer; Vijay K Goel Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 1.985