Literature DB >> 21177135

Rigid and flexible spinal stabilization devices: a biomechanical comparison.

Fabio Galbusera1, Chiara Maria Bellini, Federica Anasetti, Cristina Ciavarro, Alessio Lovi, Marco Brayda-Bruno.   

Abstract

The surgical devices for the treatment of degenerative disc disease are based on different concepts (rods for spine fusion, ROM-restricting or load-bearing devices for dynamic stabilization). In the present work, the effects of some stabilization systems on the biomechanics of the lumbar spine were investigated by means of a finite element model of the L2-L5 spine segment. Pedicular screws and stabilization devices were added at L4-L5. Different rods were considered: stainless steel, titanium, PEEK and the composite ostaPek. Two pedicular devices aimed at motion preservation were also considered: the FlexPLUS and the DSS. All models were loaded by using the hybrid protocol in flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation. The spine biomechanics after implantation resulted significantly sensitive to the design and the materials of the device. The impact of all rods in reducing the ROM was found to be critical (>70% in flexion and extension). The dynamic devices were able to preserve the motion of the segment, but with different performances (ROM reduction from 30% (DSS) to 50% (FlexPLUS)). The shared load was more sensitive to the elastic modulus of the device material than the calculated ROMs (from 7% (PEEK) to 48% (stainless steel)). Regarding devices aimed at motion preservation, the authors suggest to distinguish "flexible" devices, which are able to preserve only a minor fraction (e.g. at most 50%) of the physiological ROM, from "dynamic" devices, which induce a smaller ROM restriction. However, the optimal characteristics of a stabilization device for the treatment of degenerative disc disease still need to be determined by means of basic science and clinical studies.
Copyright © 2010 IPEM. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21177135     DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2010.11.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Eng Phys        ISSN: 1350-4533            Impact factor:   2.242


  21 in total

1.  Posterior lumbar fusion by peek rods in degenerative spine: preliminary report on 30 cases.

Authors:  F De Iure; G Bosco; M Cappuccio; S Paderni; L Amendola
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-03-09       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Clinical and biomechanical researches of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rods for semi-rigid lumbar fusion: a systematic review.

Authors:  Chan Li; Lei Liu; Jian-Yong Shi; Kai-Zhong Yan; Wei-Zhong Shen; Zhen-Rong Yang
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 3.042

3.  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

4.  Material failure in dynamic spine implants: are the standardized implant tests before market launch sufficient?

Authors:  Stavros Oikonomidis; Rolf Sobottke; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Christian Herren; Agnes Beckmann; Kourosh Zarghooni; Jan Siewe
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Radius of Curvature in Patient-Specific Short Rod Constructs Versus Standard Pre-Bent Rods.

Authors:  Katherine Branche; Rahwa Netsanet; Andriy Noshchenko; Evalina Burger; Vikas Patel; David Ou-Yang; Christopher J Kleck
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-12-29

6.  Effects of rod stiffness and fusion mass on the adjacent segments after floating mono-segmental fusion: a study using finite element analysis.

Authors:  Yong Jun Jin; Young Eun Kim; Jung Ho Seo; Hae Won Choi; Tae-Ahn Jahng
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-12-16       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.  Biomechanics of sacropelvic fixation: a comprehensive finite element comparison of three techniques.

Authors:  Fabio Galbusera; Gloria Casaroli; Ruchi Chande; Derek Lindsey; Tomaso Villa; Scott Yerby; Ali Mesiwala; Matteo Panico; Enrico Gallazzi; Marco Brayda-Bruno
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-11-26       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Preclinical evaluation of posterior spine stabilization devices: can the current standards represent basic everyday life activities?

Authors:  Luigi La Barbera; Fabio Galbusera; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Tomaso Villa
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-05-28       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Preclinical evaluation of posterior spine stabilization devices: can we compare in vitro and in vivo loads on the instrumentation?

Authors:  Luigi La Barbera; Fabio Galbusera; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Tomaso Villa
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-09-16       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.