Literature DB >> 18493802

The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants on the range of motion of lumbar motion segments after decompression.

Tobias L Schulte1, Christof Hurschler, Marcel Haversath, Ulf Liljenqvist, Viola Bullmann, Timm J Filler, Nani Osada, Eva-Maria Fallenberg, Lars Hackenberg.   

Abstract

Undercutting decompression is a common surgical procedure for the therapy of lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Segmental instability, due to segmental degeneration or iatrogenic decompression is a typical problem that is clinically addressed by fusion, or more recently by semi-rigid stabilization devices. The objective of this experimental biomechanical study was to investigate the influence of spinal decompression alone, as well as in conjunction with two semi-rigid stabilizing implants (Wallis, Dynesys) on the range of motion (ROM) of lumbar spine segments. A total of 21 fresh-frozen human lumbar spine motion segments were obtained. Range of motion and neutral zone (NZ) were measured in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LAT) and axial rotation (ROT) for each motion segment under four conditions: (1) with all stabilizing structures intact (PHY), (2) after bilateral undercutting decompression (UDC), (3) after additional implantation of Wallis (UDC-W) and (4) after removal of Wallis and subsequent implantation of Dynesys (UDC-D). Measurements were performed using a sensor-guided industrial robot in a pure-moment-loading mode. Range of motion was defined as the angle covered between loadings of -5 and +5 Nm during the last of three applied motion cycles. Untreated physiologic segments showed the following mean ROM: FE 6.6 degrees , LAT 7.4 degrees , ROT 3.9 degrees . After decompression, a significant increase of ROM was observed: 26% FE, 6% LAT, 12% ROT. After additional implantation of a semi-rigid device, a decrease in ROM compared to the situation after decompression alone was observed with a reduction of 66 and 75% in FE, 6 and 70% in LAT, and 5 and 22% in ROT being observed for the Wallis and Dynesys, respectively. When the flexion and extension contribution to ROM was separated, the Wallis implant restricted extension by 69% and flexion by 62%, the Dynesys by 73 and 75%, respectively. Compared to the intact status, instrumentation following decompression led to a ROM reduction of 58 and 68% in FE, 1 and 68% in LAT, -6 and 13% in ROT, 61 and 65% in extension and 54 and 70% in flexion for Wallis and Dynesys. The effect of the implants on NZ corresponded to that on ROM. In conclusion, implantation of the Wallis and Dynesys devices following decompression leads to a restriction of ROM in all motion planes investigated. Flexion-extension is most affected by both implants. The Dynesys implant leads to an additional strong restriction in lateral bending. Rotation is only mildly affected by both implants. Wallis and Dynesys restrict not only isolated extension, but also flexion. These biomechanical results support the hypothesis that postoperatively, the semi-rigid implants provide a primary stabilizing function directly. Whether they can improve the clinical outcome must still be verified in prospective clinical investigations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18493802      PMCID: PMC2518758          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-008-0667-0

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


  36 in total

1.  Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Long-term results after undercutting decompression compared with decompressive laminectomy alone or with instrumented fusion.

Authors:  J D Rompe; P Eysel; J Zöllner; B Nafe; J Heine
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 3.042

2.  The effects of an interspinous implant on intervertebral disc pressures.

Authors:  Kyle E Swanson; Derek P Lindsey; Ken Y Hsu; James F Zucherman; Scott A Yerby
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment.

Authors:  W Schmoelz; J F Huber; T Nydegger; L Claes; H J Wilke
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2003-08

Review 4.  The conservative surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly.

Authors:  Robert Gunzburg; Marek Szpalski
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-09-05       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  [Application of a dynamic pedicle screw system (DYNESYS) for lumbar segmental degenerations - comparison of clinical and radiological results for different indications].

Authors:  M Putzier; S V Schneider; J Funk; C Perka
Journal:  Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr

6.  A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating the X STOP interspinous process decompression system for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: two-year follow-up results.

Authors:  James F Zucherman; Ken Y Hsu; Charles A Hartjen; Thomas F Mehalic; Dante A Implicito; Michael J Martin; Donald R Johnson; Grant A Skidmore; Paul P Vessa; James W Dwyer; Stephen T Puccio; Joseph C Cauthen; Richard M Ozuna
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Mechanical supplementation by non-rigid fixation in degenerative intervertebral lumbar segments: the Wallis system.

Authors:  J Sénégas
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2002-06-01       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system.

Authors:  Thomas M Stoll; Gilles Dubois; Othmar Schwarzenbach
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2002-09-10       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  A prospective randomized multi-center study for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with the X STOP interspinous implant: 1-year results.

Authors:  J F Zucherman; K Y Hsu; C A Hartjen; T F Mehalic; D A Implicito; M J Martin; D R Johnson; G A Skidmore; P P Vessa; J W Dwyer; S Puccio; J C Cauthen; R M Ozuna
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-12-19       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  The effects of an interspinous implant on the kinematics of the instrumented and adjacent levels in the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Derek P Lindsey; Kyle E Swanson; Paul Fuchs; Ken Y Hsu; James F Zucherman; Scott A Yerby
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  28 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.  [Results of the Wallis interspinous spacer].

Authors:  M Reith; M Richter
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  [Long-term results, status of studies and differential indication regarding the DIAM implant].

Authors:  F A Krappel
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Computed tomography measurements of the lumbar spinous processes and interspinous space.

Authors:  Rolf Sobottke; Timmo Koy; Marc Röllinghoff; Jan Siewe; Thomas Kreitz; Daniel Müller; Christopher Bangard; Peer Eysel
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 1.246

5.  Posterior dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine with the Accuflex rod system as a stand-alone device: experience in 20 patients with 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Alejandro Reyes-Sánchez; Barón Zárate-Kalfópulos; Isabel Ramírez-Mora; Luis Miguel Rosales-Olivarez; Armando Alpizar-Aguirre; Guadalupe Sánchez-Bringas
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-05-22       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  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

7.  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

8.  [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

9.  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

10.  Interspinous implants (X Stop, Wallis, Diam) for the treatment of LSS: is there a correlation between radiological parameters and clinical outcome?

Authors:  Rolf Sobottke; Klaus Schlüter-Brust; Thomas Kaulhausen; Marc Röllinghoff; Britta Joswig; Hartmut Stützer; Peer Eysel; Patrick Simons; Johannes Kuchta
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-06-27       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.