Kwonsoo Chun1, Inchul Yang2, Namhoon Kim1, Dosang Cho3. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. 2. Department of Medical Biotechnology, Dongguk University, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of posterior implant rigidity on spinal kinematics at adjacent levels by utilizing a cadaveric spine model with simulated physiological loading. METHODS: Five human lumbar spinal specimens (L3 to S1) were obtained and checked for abnormalities. The fresh specimens were stripped of muscle tissue, with care taken to preserve the spinal ligaments and facet joints. Pedicle screws were implanted in the L4 and L5 vertebrae of each specimen. Specimens were tested under 0 N and 400 N axial loading. Five different posterior rods of various elastic moduli (intact, rubber, low-density polyethylene, aluminum, and titanium) were tested. Segmental range of motion (ROM), center of rotation (COR) and intervertebral disc pressure were investigated. RESULTS: As the rigidity of the posterior rods increased, both the segmental ROM and disc pressure at L4-5 decreased, while those values increased at adjacent levels. Implant stiffness saturation was evident, as the ROM and disc pressure were only marginally increased beyond an implant stiffness of aluminum. Since the disc pressures of adjacent levels were increased by the axial loading, it was shown that the rigidity of the implants influenced the load sharing between the implant and the spinal column. The segmental CORs at the adjacent disc levels translated anteriorly and inferiorly as rigidity of the device increased. CONCLUSION: These biomechanical findings indicate that the rigidity of the dynamic stabilization implant and physiological loading play significant roles on spinal kinematics at adjacent disc levels, and will aid in further device development.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of posterior implant rigidity on spinal kinematics at adjacent levels by utilizing a cadaveric spine model with simulated physiological loading. METHODS: Five human lumbar spinal specimens (L3 to S1) were obtained and checked for abnormalities. The fresh specimens were stripped of muscle tissue, with care taken to preserve the spinal ligaments and facet joints. Pedicle screws were implanted in the L4 and L5 vertebrae of each specimen. Specimens were tested under 0 N and 400 N axial loading. Five different posterior rods of various elastic moduli (intact, rubber, low-density polyethylene, aluminum, and titanium) were tested. Segmental range of motion (ROM), center of rotation (COR) and intervertebral disc pressure were investigated. RESULTS: As the rigidity of the posterior rods increased, both the segmental ROM and disc pressure at L4-5 decreased, while those values increased at adjacent levels. Implant stiffness saturation was evident, as the ROM and disc pressure were only marginally increased beyond an implant stiffness of aluminum. Since the disc pressures of adjacent levels were increased by the axial loading, it was shown that the rigidity of the implants influenced the load sharing between the implant and the spinal column. The segmental CORs at the adjacent disc levels translated anteriorly and inferiorly as rigidity of the device increased. CONCLUSION: These biomechanical findings indicate that the rigidity of the dynamic stabilization implant and physiological loading play significant roles on spinal kinematics at adjacent disc levels, and will aid in further device development.
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
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