Literature DB >> 19565278

Comparative biomechanical investigation of a modular dynamic lumbar stabilization system and the Dynesys system.

Philippe Gédet1, Daniel Haschtmann, Paul A Thistlethwaite, Stephen J Ferguson.   

Abstract

The goal of non-fusion stabilization is to reduce the mobility of the spine segment to less than that of the intact spine specimen, while retaining some residual motion. Several in vitro studies have been conducted on a dynamic system currently available for clinical use (Dynesys). Under pure moment loading, a dependency of the biomechanical performance on spacer length has been demonstrated; this variability in implant properties is removed with a modular concept incorporating a discrete flexible element. An in vitro study was performed to compare the kinematic and stabilizing properties of a modular dynamic lumbar stabilization system with those of Dynesys, under the influence of an axial preload. Six human cadaver spine specimens (L1-S1) were tested in a spine loading apparatus. Flexibility measurements were performed by applying pure bending moments of 8 Nm, about each of the three principal anatomical axes, with a simultaneously applied axial preload of 400 N. Specimens were tested intact, and following creation of a defect at L3-L4, with the Dynesys implant, with the modular implant and, after removal of the hardware, the injury state. Segmental range of motion (ROM) was reduced for flexion-extension and lateral bending with both implants. Motion in flexion was reduced to less than 20% of the intact level, in extension to approximately 40% and in lateral bending a motion reduction to less than 40% was measured. In torsion, the total ROM was not significantly different from that of the intact level. The expectations for a flexible posterior stabilizing implant are not fulfilled. The assumption that a device which is particularly compliant in bending allows substantial intersegmental motion cannot be fully supported when one considers that such devices are placed at a location far removed from the natural rotation center of the intervertebral joint.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19565278      PMCID: PMC2899384          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1077-7

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


  26 in total

1.  Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion: a review of clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic studies.

Authors:  J C Eck; S C Humphreys; S D Hodges
Journal:  Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ)       Date:  1999-06

2.  Dynamic neutralisation of the lumbar spine confirmed on a new lumbar spine simulator in vitro.

Authors:  S Freudiger; G Dubois; M Lorrain
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 3.  Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain.

Authors:  G B Andersson
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-08-14       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  A follower load increases the load-carrying capacity of the lumbar spine in compression.

Authors:  A G Patwardhan; R M Havey; K P Meade; B Lee; B Dunlap
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Community studies of the health service implications of low back pain.

Authors:  M E McKinnon; M R Vickers; V M Ruddock; J Townsend; T W Meade
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-09-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Christina A Niosi; Qingan A Zhu; Derek C Wilson; Ory Keynan; David R Wilson; Thomas R Oxland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-10-11       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants.

Authors:  H J Wilke; K Wenger; L Claes
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Disc degeneration in young patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis treated operatively or conservatively: a long-term follow-up.

Authors:  S Seitsalo; D Schlenzka; M Poussa; K Osterman
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Influence of a dynamic stabilisation system on load bearing of a bridged disc: an in vitro study of intradiscal pressure.

Authors:  W Schmoelz; J F Huber; T Nydegger; L Claes; H J Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-01-21       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system: a preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance imaging findings.

Authors:  James Beastall; Efthimios Karadimas; Manal Siddiqui; Malcolm Nicol; Justin Hughes; Francis Smith; Douglas Wardlaw
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  16 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.  [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

4.  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

5.  Circumferential dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine: a biomechanical analysis.

Authors:  Wolfram Käfer; Balkan Cakir; Stefan Midderhoff; Heiko Reichel; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-04-11       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Quantifying intervertebral disc mechanics: a new definition of the neutral zone.

Authors:  Theodoor H Smit; Manon Slm van Tunen; Albert J van der Veen; Idsart Kingma; Jaap H van Dieën
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2011-02-07       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  The current testing protocols for biomechanical evaluation of lumbar spinal implants in laboratory setting: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Sabrina A Gonzalez-Blohm; James J Doulgeris; William E Lee; Thomas M Shea; Kamran Aghayev; Frank D Vrionis
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-02-15       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  In vivo compatibility of Dynesys(®) spinal implants: a case series of five retrieved periprosthetic tissue samples and corresponding implants.

Authors:  M Neukamp; C Roeder; S Y Veruva; D W MacDonald; S M Kurtz; M J Steinbeck
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-12-06       Impact factor: 3.134

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.  Anterior Fixation of Floating Facet Fractures in the Cervical Spine: A Prospective Case Series and Biomechanical Analysis.

Authors:  Christopher Chaput; Nathan B Haile; Aditya M Muzumdar; David M Gloystein; Vasilios A Zerris; Paul J Tortolani; Mark Rahm; Mark Moldavsky; Suresh Chinthakunta; Saif Khalil
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-03-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.