Literature DB >> 18165744

The effect of dynamic posterior stabilization on facet joint contact forces: an in vitro investigation.

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

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Facet contact forces in the lumbar spine were measured during flexibility tests using thin film electroresistive sensors in intact cadaveric spine specimens and in injured specimens stabilized with a dynamic posterior system.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of the Dynesys system on the loading in the facet joints. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Dynesys, a posterior nonfusion device, aims to preserve intersegmental kinematics and reduce facet loads. Recent biomechanical evidence showed that overall motion is less with the Dynesys than in the intact spine, but no studies have shown its effect on facet loads.
METHODS: Ten human cadaveric lumbar spine specimens (L2-L5) were tested by applying a pure moment of +/-7.5 N m in 3 directions of loading with and without a follower preload of 600 N. Test conditions included an intact specimen and an injured specimen stabilized with 3 Dynesys spacer lengths. Bilateral facet contact forces were measured during flexibility tests using thin film electroresistive sensors (Tekscan 6900).
RESULTS: Implanting the Dynesys significantly increased peak facet contact forces in flexion (from 3 N to 22 N per side) and lateral bending (from 14 N to 24 N per side), but had no significant effect on the magnitude of the peak forces in extension and axial rotation. Peak facet loads were significantly lower with the long spacer compared with the short spacer in flexion and lateral bending.
CONCLUSION: Implantation of the Dynesys did not affect peak facet contact forces in extension or axial rotation compared with an intact specimen, but did alter these loads in flexion and lateral bending. The spacer length affected the compression of the posterior elements, with a shorter spacer typically producing greater facets loads than a longer one.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18165744     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e7f76

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  19 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.  [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

3.  Clinical Experiences of Non-fusion Dynamic Stabilization Surgery for Adjacent Segmental Pathology after Lumbar Fusion.

Authors:  Soo Eon Lee; Tae-Ahn Jahng; Hyun-Jib Kim
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-02-03

4.  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

5.  Kinematic evaluation of the adjacent segments after lumbar instrumented surgery: a comparison between rigid fusion and dynamic non-fusion stabilization.

Authors:  Yuichiro Morishita; Hideki Ohta; Masatoshi Naito; Yoshiyuki Matsumoto; George Huang; Masato Tatsumi; Yoshiharu Takemitsu; Hirotaka Kida
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-02-08       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Comparative clinical efficacy and safety of cortical bone trajectory screw fixation and traditional pedicle screw fixation in posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jizhou Wang; Xiaoqi He; Tianwei Sun
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-05-13       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Biomechanical analysis and design of a dynamic spinal fixator using topology optimization: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Hung-Ming Lin; Chien-Lin Liu; Yung-Ning Pan; Chang-Hung Huang; Shih-Liang Shih; Shun-Hwa Wei; Chen-Sheng Chen
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 2.602

8.  Effect of Device Rigidity and Physiological Loading on Spinal Kinematics after Dynamic Stabilization : An In-Vitro Biomechanical Study.

Authors:  Kwonsoo Chun; Inchul Yang; Namhoon Kim; Dosang Cho
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2015-11-30

Review 9.  Spinal facet joint biomechanics and mechanotransduction in normal, injury and degenerative conditions.

Authors:  Nicolas V Jaumard; William C Welch; Beth A Winkelstein
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 2.097

Review 10.  [Dynamic instrumentation of the lumbar spine. Clinical and biomechanical analysis of success factors].

Authors:  Y P Charles; A Walter; S Schuller; J-P Steib
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.087

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.