Jonas Widmer1, Frédéric Cornaz2, Gita Scheibler2, José Miguel Spirig3, Jess G Snedeker2, Mazda Farshad3. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland; Institute for Biomechanics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. Electronic address: jonas.widmer@hest.ethz.ch. 2. Department of Orthopaedics, Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland; Institute for Biomechanics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Orthopaedics, Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The contribution of anatomical structures to the stability of the spine is of great relevance for diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic evaluation of spinal pathologies. Although a plethora of literature is available, the contribution of anatomical structures is still not well understood. PURPOSE: We aimed to quantify the biomechanical relevance of each of the passive spinal structure trough deliberate biomechanical test series using a stepwise reduction approach on cadavers. STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical cadaveric study. METHODS: Fifty lumbar spinal segments originating from 22 human lumbar cadavers were biomechanically tested in a displacement-controlled stepwise reduction study: the intertransverse ligaments, the supraspinous and interspinous ligaments, the facet joint capsules (FJC), the facet joints (FJ), the ligamentum flavum (LF), the posterior longitudinal ligament (PLL), and the anterior longitudinal ligament were subsequently reduced. In the intact state and after each transection step, the segments were physiologically loaded in flexion, extension, axial rotation (AR), lateral bending (LB) and with anterior (AS), posterior (PS) and lateral shear (LS). Thirty-two specimens with only minor degeneration, representing a reasonably healthy subpopulation, were selected for the here presented evaluation. Quantitative values for load and spinal level dependent contribution patterns for the anatomical structures were derived. RESULTS: Small variability between of the contribution patterns are observed. The intervertebral disc (IVD) is exposed to about 67% of the applied load in LB and during shear loading, but less by load in flexion, extension and AR (less than 35%). The FJ&FJC are the main stabilizers in AR with 49%, but provide only 10% of the stability in extension. Beside the IVD, the LF and the PLL contribute mainly in flexion (22% and 16%, respectively), while the ALL plays a major role during extension (40%) and also contributes during LB (15%). The contribution of the intertransverse ligaments and the supraspinous and interspinous ligaments are very small in all loading directions (<2% and <6%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The IVD takes the main load in LB and absorbs shear loading, while the FJ&FJC stabilize AR. The ALL resists extension while LF and PLL stabilize flexion. With the small variability of contribution patterns, suggesting distinct adaptation of the structures to one another, the biomechanical characteristics of one structure have to be put in context of the whole spinal segment. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The novel information on load distribution helps predict the biomechanical consequences of surgical procedures in more detail.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The contribution of anatomical structures to the stability of the spine is of great relevance for diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic evaluation of spinal pathologies. Although a plethora of literature is available, the contribution of anatomical structures is still not well understood. PURPOSE: We aimed to quantify the biomechanical relevance of each of the passive spinal structure trough deliberate biomechanical test series using a stepwise reduction approach on cadavers. STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical cadaveric study. METHODS: Fifty lumbar spinal segments originating from 22 human lumbar cadavers were biomechanically tested in a displacement-controlled stepwise reduction study: the intertransverse ligaments, the supraspinous and interspinous ligaments, the facet joint capsules (FJC), the facet joints (FJ), the ligamentum flavum (LF), the posterior longitudinal ligament (PLL), and the anterior longitudinal ligament were subsequently reduced. In the intact state and after each transection step, the segments were physiologically loaded in flexion, extension, axial rotation (AR), lateral bending (LB) and with anterior (AS), posterior (PS) and lateral shear (LS). Thirty-two specimens with only minor degeneration, representing a reasonably healthy subpopulation, were selected for the here presented evaluation. Quantitative values for load and spinal level dependent contribution patterns for the anatomical structures were derived. RESULTS: Small variability between of the contribution patterns are observed. The intervertebral disc (IVD) is exposed to about 67% of the applied load in LB and during shear loading, but less by load in flexion, extension and AR (less than 35%). The FJ&FJC are the main stabilizers in AR with 49%, but provide only 10% of the stability in extension. Beside the IVD, the LF and the PLL contribute mainly in flexion (22% and 16%, respectively), while the ALL plays a major role during extension (40%) and also contributes during LB (15%). The contribution of the intertransverse ligaments and the supraspinous and interspinous ligaments are very small in all loading directions (<2% and <6%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The IVD takes the main load in LB and absorbs shear loading, while the FJ&FJC stabilize AR. The ALL resists extension while LF and PLL stabilize flexion. With the small variability of contribution patterns, suggesting distinct adaptation of the structures to one another, the biomechanical characteristics of one structure have to be put in context of the whole spinal segment. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The novel information on load distribution helps predict the biomechanical consequences of surgical procedures in more detail.
Authors: Marco D Burkhard; Frédéric Cornaz; José Miguel Spirig; Florian Wanivenhaus; Rafael Loucas; Marie-Rosa Fasser; Jonas Widmer; Mazda Farshad Journal: N Am Spine Soc J Date: 2021-11-17
Authors: Simone Borrelli; Giovanni Putame; Giulia Pascoletti; Mara Terzini; Elisabetta M Zanetti Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2022-07-29 Impact factor: 4.219