Effects of cord pretension and stiffness of the Dynesys system spacer on the biomechanics of spinal decompression- a finite element study

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Chen-Sheng Chen³  Chang-Hung Huang²  Li-Ying Huang⁴  Chien-Lin Liu¹  Shih-Liang Shih⁵ 

[1] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Taipei-Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan;Department of Biomedical Research, Mackay Memorial Hospital, Tamshui Taipei County, Taiwan;Department of Physical Therapy and Assistive Technology, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan;Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Chang Gung Meorial hospital, Taipei, Taiwan;Institute of Neuroscience, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan

关键词: Finite element analysis;    Spacer;    Cord pretension;    Dynesys;    Decompression;    Adjacent disc;   

Others  :  1130487
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-14-191

 received in 2012-11-30, accepted in 2013-06-14,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The Dynesys system provides stability for destabilized spines while preserving segmental motion. However, clinical studies have demonstrated that the Dynesys system does not prevent adjacent segment disease. Moreover, biomechanical studies have revealed that the stiffness of the Dynesys system is comparable to rigid fixation. Our previous studies showed that adjusting the cord pretension of the Dynesys system alleviates stress on the adjacent level during flexion. We also demonstrated that altering the stiffness of Dynesys system spacers can alleviate stress on the adjacent level during extension of the intact spine. In the present study, we hypothesized that omitting the cord preload and changing the stiffness of the Dynesys system spacers would abate stress shielding on adjacent spinal segments.

Methods

Finite element models were developed for - intact spine (INT), facetectomy and laminectomy at L3-4 (DEC), intact spine with Dynesys system (IntDyWL), decompressed spine with Dynesys system (DecDyWL), decompressed spine with Dynesys system without cord preload (DecDyNL), and decompressed spine with Dynesys system assembled using spacers that were 0.8 times the standard diameter without cord pretension (DecDyNL0.8). These models were subjected to hybrid control for flexion, extension, axial rotation; and lateral bending.

Results

The greatest decreases in range of motion (ROM) at the L3-4 level occurred for axial rotation and lateral bending in the IntDyWL model and for flexion and extension in the DecDyWL model. The greatest decreases in disc stress occurred for extension and lateral bending in the IntDyWL model and for flexion in the DecDyWL model. The greatest decreases in facet contact force occurred for extension and lateral bending in the DecDyNL model and for axial rotation in the DecDyWL model. The greatest increases in ROMs at L2-3 level occurred for flexion, axial rotation and lateral bending in IntDyWL model and for extension in the DecDyNL model. The greatest increases in disc stress occurred for flexion, axial rotation and lateral bending in the IntDyWL model and for extension in the DecDyNL model. The greatest increases in facet contact force occurred for extension and lateral bending in the DecDyNL model and for axial rotation in the IntDyWL model.

Conclusions

The results reveals that removing the Dynesys system cord pretension attenuates the ROMs, disc stress, and facet joint contact forces at adjacent levels during flexion and axial rotation. Removing cord pretension together with softening spacers abates stress shielding for adjacent segment during four different moments, and it provides enough security while not jeopardizes the stability of spine during axial rotation.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Shih et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bridwell KH, Sedgewick TA, O’Brien MF, Lenke LG, Baldus C: The role of fusion and instrumentation in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 1993, 6(6):461-472.
• [2]Lee CK: Lumbar spinal instability (olisthesis) after extensive posterior spinal decompression. Spine 1983, 8(4):429-433.
• [3]Johnsson KE, Willner S, Johnsson K: Postoperative instability after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1986, 11(2):107-110.
• [4]Lee CK: Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine 1988, 13(3):375-377.
• [5]Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE: Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine 2004, 29(17):1938-1944.
• [6]Schulte TL, Hurschler C, Haversath M, Liljenqvist U, Bullmann V, Filler TJ, Osada N, Fallenberg EM, Hackenberg L: The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants on the range of motion of lumbar motion segments after decompression. Eur Spine J 2008, 17(8):1057-1065.
• [7]Mulholland RC, Sengupta DK: Rationale, principles and experimental evaluation of the concept of soft stabilization. Eur Spine J 2002, 11(2):S198-S205.
• [8]Dubois G, de Germay B, Schaerer NS, Fennema P: Dynamic neutralization: a new concept for restabilization of the spine. In Lumbar segmental instability. Edited by Szalski M, Gunzburg R, Pope MH. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1999:233-240.
• [9]Schaeren S, Broger I, Jeanneret B: Minimum four-year follow-up of spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and dynamic stabilization. Spine 2008, 33(18):E636-E642.
• [10]Schnake KJ, Schaeren S, Jeanneret B: Dynamic stabilization in addition to decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine 2006, 31(4):442-449.
• [11]Silvestre MD, Lolli F, Bakaloudis G, Parisini P: Dynamic stabilization for degenerative lumbar scoliosis in elderly patients. Spine 2010, 35(2):227-234.
• [12]Welch WC, Cheng BC, Awad TE, Davis R, Maxwell JH, Delamarter R, Wingate JK, Sherman J, Macenski MM: Clinical outcomes of the Dynesys dynamic neutralization system: 1-year preliminary results. Neurosurg Focus 2007, 22(1):E8.
• [13]Wurgler-Hauri CC, Kalbarczyk A, Wiesli M, Landolt H, Fandino J: Dynamic neutralization of the lumbar spine after microsurgical decompression in acquired lumbar spinal stenosis and segmental instability. Spine 2008, 33(3):E66-E72.
• [14]Kumar A, Beastall J, Hughes J, Karadimas EJ, Nicol M, Smith F, Wardlaw D: Disc changes in the bridged and adjacent segments after Dynesys dynamic stabilization system after two years. Spine 2008, 33(26):2909-2914.
• [15]Cakir B, Carazzo C, Schmidt R, Mattes T, Reichel H, Kafer W: Adjacent segment mobility after rigid and semi-rigid instrumentation of the lumbar spine. Spine 2009, 34(12):1287-1291.
• [16]Kim CH, Chung CK, Jahng TA: Comparisons of outcomes after single or multilevel dynamic stabilization: effects on adjacent segment. J Spinal Disord Tech 2011, 24(1):60-67.
• [17]Castellvi A, Huang H, Vestgaarden T, Saigal S, Clabeaux DH, Pienkowski D: Stress reduction in adjacent level discs via dynamic instrumentation: a finite element analysis. SAS Journal 2007, 1(2):74-81.
• [18]Zander T, Rohlmann A, Burra NK, Bergmann G: Effect of a posterior dynamic implant adjacent to a rigid spinal fixator. Clin Biomech 2006, 21(8):767-774.
• [19]Strube P, Tohtz S, Hoff E, Gross C, Perka C, Putzier: Dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion. Part I. Biomechanical effects on lumbar spinal motion. Eur Spine J 2010, 19(12):2171-2180.
• [20]Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, Claes L, Wilke HJ: Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003, 16(4):418-423.
• [21]Shin DS, Lee K, Kim D: Biomechanical study of lumbar spine with dynamic stabilization device using finite element method. Computer-Aided Design 2007, 39:559-567.
• [22]Zhang QH, Teo EC: Effect of Dynamic stabilization device stiffness on disc loading under compression. IFMBE Proceedings 2008, 19:119-122.
• [23]Liu CL, Zhong ZC, Hsu HW, Shih SL, Wang ST, Hung C, Chen CS: Effect of the cord pretension of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system on the biomechanics of the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 2011, 20(11):1850-1858.
• [24]Shih SL, Chen CS, Lin HM, Huang LY, Liu CL, Huang CH, Cheng CK: Effect of spacer diameter of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system on the biomechanics of the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2012, 25(5):E140-E149.
• [25]Zhong ZC, Chen SH, Hung C: Load- and displacement controlled finite element analyses on fusion and non-fusion spinal implants. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2009, 223(2):143-157.
• [26]Chen SH, Zhong ZC, Chen CS, Chen WJ, Hung C: Biomechanical comparison between lumbar disc arthroplasty and fusion. Med Eng Phys 2009, 31(2):244-253.
• [27]Liu CL, Zhong ZC, Shih SL, Hung C, Lee YE, Chen CS: Influence of Dynesys system screw profile on adjacent segment and screw. J Spinal Disord Tech 2010, 23(6):410-417.
• [28]Umehara S, Tadano S, Abumi K, Katagiri K, Kaneda K, Ukai T: Effects of degeneration on the elastic modulus distribution in the lumbar intervertebral disc. Spine 1996, 21(7):811-819.
• [29]Rohlmann A, Zander T, Bergmann G: Effect of total disc replacement with ProDisc on the biomechanical behavior of the lumbar spine. Spine 2005, 30(7):738-743.
• [30]Schmidt H, Heuer F, Simon U, Kettler A, Rohlmann A, Claes L, Wilke HJ: Application of a new calibration method for a three-dimensional finite element model of a human lumbar annulus fibrosus. Clin Biomech 2006, 21(4):337-344.
• [31]Kettler A, Rohlmann F, Ring C, Mack C, Wilke HJ: Do early stages of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration really cause instability? Evaluation of an in vitro database. Eur Spine J 2011, 20(4):578-584.
• [32]Ruberte LM, Natarajan RN, Andersson GB: Influence of single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease on the behavior of the adjacent segments–a finite element model study. J Biomech 2009, 42(3):341-348.
• [33]McMillan DW, McNally DS, Garbutt G, Adams MA: Stress distributions inside intervertebral discs: The validity of experimental stress profilometry. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 1996, 210(2):81-87.
• [34]Yamamoto I, Panjabi MM, Crisco T, Oxland T: Three-D Moments of the Whole Lumbar Spoie and Lumbosacral Joint. Spine 1989, 14(11):1256-1260.
• [35]Panjabi MM: Hybrid multidirectional test method to evaluate spinal adjacent - level effects. Clin Biomech 2007, 22(3):257-265.
• [36]Okawa A, Shinomiya K, Takakuda K, Nakai O: A cadaveric study on the stability of lumbar segment after partial laminotomy and facetectomy with intact posterior ligaments. J Spinal Disord 1996, 9(6):518-526.
• [37]Bresnahan L, Ogden AT, Natarajan RN, Fessler RG: A biomechanical evaluation of graded posterior element removal for treatment of lumbar stenosis: comparison of a minimally invasive approach with two standard laminectomy techniques. Spine 2009, 34(1):17-23.
• [38]Abumi K, Panjabi MM, Kramer KM, Duranceu J, Oxland T, Crisco JJ: Biomechanical evaluation of lumbar spine stability after graded facetectomies. Spine 1990, 15(11):1142-1147.
• [39]Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC, Keynan O, Wilson DR, Oxland TR: Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system: an in vitro study. Eur Spine J 2006, 15(6):913-922.
• [40]Panjabi MM, Henderson G, James Y, Timm P: StabilimaxNZ versus simulated fusion: evaluation of adjacent-Level effects. Eur Spine J 2007, 16(12):2159-2165.
• [41]Rao RD, Wang M, Singhal P: Intradiscal pressure and kinematic behavior of lumbar spine after bilateral laminotomy and laminectomy. Spine J 2002, 2(5):320-326.
• [42]Cunningham BW, Kotani Y, McNulty PS, Cappuccino A, McAfee PC: The effect of spinal destabilization and instrumentation on lumbar intradiscal pressure: an in vitro biomechanical analysis. Spine 1997, 22(22):2655-2263.
• [43]Haher TR, O'Brien M, Dryer JW, Nucci R, Zipnick R, Leone DJ: The role of the lumbar facet joints in spinal stability. Identification of alternative paths of loading. Spine 1994, 19(23):2667-2671.
• [44]Kiapour A, Ambati D, Hoy RW, Goel VK: Effect of graded facetectomy on biomechanics of Dynesys dynamic stabilization system. Spine 2012, 37(10):E581-E589.
• [45]Kuo CS, Hu HT, Lin RM, Huang KY, Lin PC, Zhong ZC, Hseih ML: Biomechanical analysis of the lumbar spine on facet joint force and intradiscal pressure - a finite element study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010, 11:151. BioMed Central Full Text
• [46]Serhan HA, Varnavas G, Dooris AP, Patwadhan A, Tzermiadianos M: Biomechanics of the posterior lumbar articulating elements. Neurosurg Focus 2007, 22(1):E1.
• [47]Zander T, Rohlmann A, Klockner C, Bergmann G: Influence of graded facetectomy and laminectomy on spinal biomechanics. Eur Spine J 2003, 12:427-434.
• [48]Rohlmann A, Boustani HN, Bergmann G, Zander T: Effect of a pedicle-screw- based motion preservation system on lumbar spine biomechanics: a probabilistic finite element study with subsequent sensitivity analysis. J Biomech 2010, 43:2963-2969.
• [49]Lee KK, Teo EC, Qiu TX, Yang K: Effect of facetectomy on lumbar spinal stability under sagittal plane loadings. Spine 2004, 29(15):1624-1631.