Ahmet Kulduk1, Necdet S Altun2, Alpaslan Senkoylu2. 1. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Gazi Mustafa Kemal State Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 2. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The primary purpose of dynamic stabilization is to preserve the normal range of motion (ROM) by restricting abnormal movement in the spine. Our aim was to analyze the effects of two different dynamic stabilization systems using finite element modeling (FEM). METHODS: Coflex and Dynesys dynamic devices were modeled and implanted at the L4-L5 segment using virtual FEM. A 400 N compressive force combined with 6 N flexion, extension, bending and axial rotation forces was applied to the L3-4 and L4-5 segments. ROM and disc loading forces were analyzed. RESULTS: Both systems reduced ROM and disc loading forces at the implanted lumbar segment, with the exception of the Coflex interspinous device, which increased ROM by 19% and did not change disc-loading forces in flexion. CONCLUSIONS: The Coflex device prevented excessive disc loading, but increased ROM abnormally in flexion. Neither device provided satisfactory motion preservation or load sharing in other directions.
BACKGROUND: The primary purpose of dynamic stabilization is to preserve the normal range of motion (ROM) by restricting abnormal movement in the spine. Our aim was to analyze the effects of two different dynamic stabilization systems using finite element modeling (FEM). METHODS: Coflex and Dynesys dynamic devices were modeled and implanted at the L4-L5 segment using virtual FEM. A 400 N compressive force combined with 6 N flexion, extension, bending and axial rotation forces was applied to the L3-4 and L4-5 segments. ROM and disc loading forces were analyzed. RESULTS: Both systems reduced ROM and disc loading forces at the implanted lumbar segment, with the exception of the Coflex interspinous device, which increased ROM by 19% and did not change disc-loading forces in flexion. CONCLUSIONS: The Coflex device prevented excessive disc loading, but increased ROM abnormally in flexion. Neither device provided satisfactory motion preservation or load sharing in other directions.