Hans-Joachim Wilke1, Dominik Kaiser2, David Volkheimer3, Carsten Hackenbroch4, Klaus Püschel5, Michael Rauschmann2. 1. Institute of Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics, Trauma Research Center Ulm, University of Ulm, Helmholtzstrasse 14, 89081, Ulm, Germany. hans-joachim.wilke@uni-ulm.de. 2. Orthopädische Universitätsklinik Friedrichsheim gGmbH, Marienburgstraße 2, 60528, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 3. Institute of Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics, Trauma Research Center Ulm, University of Ulm, Helmholtzstrasse 14, 89081, Ulm, Germany. 4. Department of Radiology, German Armed Forces Hospital Ulm, Oberer Eselsberg 40, 89081, Ulm, Germany. 5. Department of Legal Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Butenfeld 34, Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: For the stabilization of the thoracolumbar spine area, various stabilization techniques have been developed in recent decades. The aim of these techniques is to immobilize the treated segment to repositioning or correct the spine and guaranty long-term stability to achieve a reliable fusion. The aim of this study was to simulate in an in vitro experiment the postoperative long-term situation in elderly osteoporotic patients to compare two different stabilization principles; a pedicle screw system and a lamina hook system. METHODS: Two comparable groups with respect to age and bone mineral density with each n = 6 fresh-frozen human, bi-segmental thoracolumbar spine specimens (T11-L1) were used. Antero-posterior and lateral radiographs were taken before the test, to assess the spinal status. Then the intact specimens were biomechanically characterized with pure moments in the three anatomical planes in different states in terms of range of motion and neutral zone. After implantation of either, a pedicle screw system or a lamina hook system, the primary stability was determined under the same conditions. Subsequently the specimens were cyclically loaded under complex loading, using a custom-made set-up in a dynamic materials testing machine with increasing moments from 3 to 66 Nm until 100,000 cycles or until one of the three defined "failure" criteria was reached. (1) A failure of a bony structure. (2) Exceeding of the threefold ROM of the primary stability after implantation in flexion plus extension. (3) Reaching of the ROM based on the intact state before implantation both in flexion plus extension. RESULTS: The results showed that the ROM was strongly reduced after instrumentation similar for both implant systems in all motion planes. The highest stabilization was found in flexion/extension. During cyclic loading with increasing moments, the ROM increased continuously for both systems. The number of load cycles until one of the failure criteria was reached varied only slightly between the two groups. In the pedicle screw group 30,000 (median) loading cycles (range 5000-80,000) with a corresponding moment of 24 Nm (range 9-54) could be reached. In the lamina hook group 32,500 load cycles (range 20,000-45,000) could be achieved with a corresponding moment of 25.5 Nm (range 18-33). There was a slight trend that the pedicle screw system is influenced more by bone mineral density. CONCLUSION: Both implant systems provide similar primary stability and similar long-term stability. In the pedicle screw group, there was a stronger correlation between bone mineral density and the reached number of load cycles.
PURPOSE: For the stabilization of the thoracolumbar spine area, various stabilization techniques have been developed in recent decades. The aim of these techniques is to immobilize the treated segment to repositioning or correct the spine and guaranty long-term stability to achieve a reliable fusion. The aim of this study was to simulate in an in vitro experiment the postoperative long-term situation in elderly osteoporoticpatients to compare two different stabilization principles; a pedicle screw system and a lamina hook system. METHODS: Two comparable groups with respect to age and bone mineral density with each n = 6 fresh-frozen human, bi-segmental thoracolumbar spine specimens (T11-L1) were used. Antero-posterior and lateral radiographs were taken before the test, to assess the spinal status. Then the intact specimens were biomechanically characterized with pure moments in the three anatomical planes in different states in terms of range of motion and neutral zone. After implantation of either, a pedicle screw system or a lamina hook system, the primary stability was determined under the same conditions. Subsequently the specimens were cyclically loaded under complex loading, using a custom-made set-up in a dynamic materials testing machine with increasing moments from 3 to 66 Nm until 100,000 cycles or until one of the three defined "failure" criteria was reached. (1) A failure of a bony structure. (2) Exceeding of the threefold ROM of the primary stability after implantation in flexion plus extension. (3) Reaching of the ROM based on the intact state before implantation both in flexion plus extension. RESULTS: The results showed that the ROM was strongly reduced after instrumentation similar for both implant systems in all motion planes. The highest stabilization was found in flexion/extension. During cyclic loading with increasing moments, the ROM increased continuously for both systems. The number of load cycles until one of the failure criteria was reached varied only slightly between the two groups. In the pedicle screw group 30,000 (median) loading cycles (range 5000-80,000) with a corresponding moment of 24 Nm (range 9-54) could be reached. In the lamina hook group 32,500 load cycles (range 20,000-45,000) could be achieved with a corresponding moment of 25.5 Nm (range 18-33). There was a slight trend that the pedicle screw system is influenced more by bone mineral density. CONCLUSION: Both implant systems provide similar primary stability and similar long-term stability. In the pedicle screw group, there was a stronger correlation between bone mineral density and the reached number of load cycles.
Authors: Vedat Deviren; Emre Acaroglu; Joe Lee; Masaru Fujita; Serena Hu; Lawrence G Lenke; David Polly; Timothy R Kuklo; Michael O'Brien; David Brumfield; Christian M Puttlitz Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-11-15 Impact factor: 3.468
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
Authors: K Hasegawa; H E Takahashi; S Uchiyama; T Hirano; T Hara; T Washio; T Sugiura; M Youkaichiya; M Ikeda Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 1997-05-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Rebecca A Kueny; Jan P Kolb; Wolfgang Lehmann; Klaus Püschel; Michael M Morlock; Gerd Huber Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Lukas Weiser; Kay Sellenschloh; Klaus Püschel; Michael M Morlock; Lennart Viezens; Wolfgang Lehmann; Gerd Huber Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Werner Schmoelz; Christian Heinz Heinrichs; Sven Schmidt; Angel R Piñera; Felix Tome-Bermejo; Javier M Duart; Marlies Bauer; Luis Álvarez Galovich Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2017-04-03 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Lukas Weiser; Gerd Huber; Kay Sellenschloh; Lennart Viezens; Klaus Püschel; Michael M Morlock; Wolfgang Lehmann Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2017-04-08 Impact factor: 3.134