Literature DB >> 9399452

The effect of spinal destabilization and instrumentation on lumbar intradiscal pressure: an in vitro biomechanical analysis.

B W Cunningham1, Y Kotani, P S McNulty, A Cappuccino, P C McAfee.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical testing was performed in human cadaveric lumbar spines, using pressure needle transducers to analyze the effects of spinal destabilization and instrumentation on lumbar intradiscal pressures.
OBJECTIVES: To quantify changes in lumbar intradiscal pressures at three adjacent disc levels under conditions of spinal reconstruction, and to evaluate the possibility of pressure-induced disc pathology secondary to spinal instrumentation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar intradiscal pressures under in vivo and in vitro conditions and the use and development of spinal instrumentation have been investigated comprehensively. However, the effects of spinal destabilization and instrumentation on lumbar intradiscal pressure have not been delineated clearly.
METHODS: In 11 human cadaveric lumbosacral specimens, specially designed pressure needle transducers quantified intradiscal pressure changes at three adjacent disc levels (L2-L3, proximal; L3-L4, operative; and L4-L5, distal) under four conditions of spinal stability: intact, destabilized, laminar hook and pedicle screw reconstructions. Biomechanical testing was performed under axial compression (0-600 N), anterior flexion (+12.5 degrees) and extension (-12.5 degrees), after which the level of degeneration and disc area (cm2) were quantified.
RESULTS: In response to destabilization and instrumentation, proximal disc pressures increased as much as 45%, and operative pressure levels decreased 41-55% (P < 0.05), depending on the instrumentation technique. Linear regression and correlation analyses comparing intradiscal pressure to the grade of disc degeneration were not significant (r = 0.24).
CONCLUSIONS: Changes in segmental intradiscal pressure levels occur in response to spinal destabilization and instrumentation (P < 0.05). Intradiscal cyclic pressure differentials drive the metabolic production and exchange of disc substances. Conditions of high or low disc pressure secondary to spinal instrumentation may serve as the impetus for altered metabolic exchange and predispose operative and adjacent levels to disc pathology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9399452     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199711150-00014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  40 in total

1.  Dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion: part I. Biomechanical effects on lumbar spinal motion.

Authors:  Patrick Strube; Stephan Tohtz; Eike Hoff; Christian Gross; Carsten Perka; Michael Putzier
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-08-04       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  [Pedicle screw-based systems for dynamic stabilization : An insight into the philosophy, technique, indications and success of these systems].

Authors:  J Richolt; M Rauschmann
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  [Long-term results of the Dynesys implant].

Authors:  C Klöckner
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Kinematic evaluation of the adjacent segments after lumbar instrumented surgery: a comparison between rigid fusion and dynamic non-fusion stabilization.

Authors:  Yuichiro Morishita; Hideki Ohta; Masatoshi Naito; Yoshiyuki Matsumoto; George Huang; Masato Tatsumi; Yoshiharu Takemitsu; Hirotaka Kida
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-02-08       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  [Effect of lumbar hybrid instrumentation and rigid fusion on the treated and the adjacent segments. A biomechanical study].

Authors:  B Wiedenhöfer; M Akbar; C H Fürstenberg; C Carstens; S Hemmer; C Schilling
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 6.  [Importance of sagittal alignment in spinal revision surgery].

Authors:  C Klöckner; R Spur; B Wiedenhöfer
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 7.  Limitations of current in vitro test protocols for investigation of instrumented adjacent segment biomechanics: critical analysis of the literature.

Authors:  David Volkheimer; Masoud Malakoutian; Thomas R Oxland; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 8.  [Adjacent segment movement after monosegmental total disc replacement and monosegmental fusion of segments L4/5].

Authors:  M Däxle; T Kocak; F Lattig; H Reichel; B Cakir
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.087

9.  Dynamic lumbar pedicle screw-rod stabilization: two-year follow-up and comparison with fusion.

Authors:  Ali Fahir Ozer; Neil R Crawford; Mehdi Sasani; Tunc Oktenoglu; Hakan Bozkus; Tuncay Kaner; Sabri Aydin
Journal:  Open Orthop J       Date:  2010-03-04

10.  Role of muscle damage on loading at the level adjacent to a lumbar spine fusion: a biomechanical analysis.

Authors:  Masoud Malakoutian; John Street; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Ian Stavness; Marcel Dvorak; Sidney Fels; Thomas Oxland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.