Literature DB >> 19038390

Which axial and bending stiffnesses of posterior implants are required to design a flexible lumbar stabilization system?

Hendrik Schmidt1, Frank Heuer, Hans-Joachim Wilke.   

Abstract

Dynamic stabilization devices have been introduced to clinics as an alternative to rigid fixation. The stiffness of these devices varies widely, whereas the optimal stiffness, achieving a predefined stabilization of the spine, is unknown. This study was focused on the determination of stiffness values for posterior stabilization devices achieving a flexible, semi-flexible or rigid connection between two vertebrae. An extensively validated finite element model of a lumbar spinal segment L4-5 with an implanted posterior fixation device was used in this study. The model was exposed to pure moments of 7.5 and 20Nm around the three principal anatomical directions, simulating flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation. In parametrical studies, the influence of the axial and bending fixator stiffness on the spinal range of motion was investigated. In order to examine the validity of the computed results, an in-vitro study was carried out. In this, the influence of two posterior stabilization devices (DSS and rigidly internal fixator) on the segmental stabilization was investigated. The finite element (FE)-model predicted that each load direction caused a pairing of stiffness relations between axial and bending stiffness. In flexion and extension, however, the bending stiffness had a neglectable effect on the segmental stabilization, compared to the axial stiffness. In contrast, lateral bending and axial rotation were influenced by both stiffness parameters. Except in axial rotation, the model predictions were in a good agreement with the determined in-vitro data. In axial rotation, the FE-model predicted a stiffer segmental behavior than it was determined in the in-vitro study. It is usually expected that high stiffness values are required for a posterior stabilization device to stiffen a spinal segment. We found that already small stiffness values were sufficient to cause a stiffening. Using these data, it may possible to develop implants for certain clinical indications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19038390     DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.10.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech        ISSN: 0021-9290            Impact factor:   2.712


  13 in total

1.  Optimal stiffness of a pedicle-screw-based motion preservation implant for the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Antonius Rohlmann; Thomas Zander; Georg Bergmann; Hadi N Boustani
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-10-20       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.  The effect of different design concepts in lumbar total disc arthroplasty on the range of motion, facet joint forces and instantaneous center of rotation of a L4-5 segment.

Authors:  Hendrik Schmidt; Stefan Midderhoff; Kyle Adkins; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Lumbar interbody fusion: a parametric investigation of a novel cage design with and without posterior instrumentation.

Authors:  Fabio Galbusera; Hendrik Schmidt; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-09-15       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Characterization of the behavior of a novel low-stiffness posterior spinal implant under anterior shear loading on a degenerative spinal model.

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

6.  Which radiographic parameters are linked to failure of a dynamic spinal implant?

Authors:  Eike Hoff; Patrick Strube; Antonius Rohlmann; Christian Gross; Michael Putzier
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Biomechanical effects of an oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with posterior augmentation: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Shengjia Huang; Shaoxiong Min; Suwei Wang; Anmin Jin
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-06-27       Impact factor: 2.562

8.  Biomechanical Comparison between Isobar and Dynamic-Transitional Optima (DTO) Hybrid Lumbar Fixators: A Lumbosacral Finite Element and Intersegmental Motion Analysis.

Authors:  Shih-Hao Chen; Chih-Kun Hsiao; Chih-Wei Wang; Hsiang-Ho Chen; Zheng-Cheng Zhong
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2022-07-08       Impact factor: 3.246

9.  Does semi-rigid instrumentation using both flexion and extension dampening spacers truly provide an intermediate level of stabilization?

Authors:  Dilip Sengupta; Brandon Bucklen; Aditya Ingalhalikar; Aditya Muzumdar; Saif Khalil
Journal:  Adv Orthop       Date:  2013-04-11

10.  Biomechanics of posterior dynamic stabilization systems.

Authors:  D U Erbulut; I Zafarparandeh; A F Ozer; V K Goel
Journal:  Adv Orthop       Date:  2013-03-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.