Biomechanical testing of different posterior fusion devices on lumbar spinal range of motion.


Journal

Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon)
ISSN: 1879-1271
Titre abrégé: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8611877

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 2019
Historique:
received: 07 07 2018
revised: 21 12 2018
accepted: 31 01 2019
pubmed: 10 2 2019
medline: 23 2 2020
entrez: 10 2 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Recent minimal-invasive posterior fusion devices are supposed to provide stability and obtain fusion in combination with interbody cages in the instrumented segment. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the primary stability of two minimal-invasive posterior prototypes compared to an established spinous process plate and standard pedicle screw instrumentation. Seven fresh frozen human cadaver lumbar spines (L2-L5) were tested in a spinal testing device with a moment of 7.5 Nm. Spinal stability was determined as mean range of motion (RoM) in the segment L3/L4 during extension-flexion, lateral bending and axial rotation. The RoM was measured during five conditions: 1. intact; 2. working prototype composed of an interspinous device and process plates; 3. an established spinous process fixation device 4. working prototype of facet fixation and 5. pedicle screw fixation. All devices caused a significant reduction of RoM during extension-flexion. The RoM during lateral bending was significantly reduced to 37% (of intact) by pedicle screws and 68% by facet fixation prototype. During axial rotation the RoM was significantly reduced to 52% by pedicle screws and to 86% by facet fixation prototype. The other devices had no significant influence on RoM during lateral bending and axial rotation. The facet fixation prototype provided less primary stability compared to pedicle screws, but had significant advantages over spinous process fixation techniques. The results encourage further testing of this implant as a minimal-invasive approach for posterior fixation.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Recent minimal-invasive posterior fusion devices are supposed to provide stability and obtain fusion in combination with interbody cages in the instrumented segment. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the primary stability of two minimal-invasive posterior prototypes compared to an established spinous process plate and standard pedicle screw instrumentation.
METHODS
Seven fresh frozen human cadaver lumbar spines (L2-L5) were tested in a spinal testing device with a moment of 7.5 Nm. Spinal stability was determined as mean range of motion (RoM) in the segment L3/L4 during extension-flexion, lateral bending and axial rotation. The RoM was measured during five conditions: 1. intact; 2. working prototype composed of an interspinous device and process plates; 3. an established spinous process fixation device 4. working prototype of facet fixation and 5. pedicle screw fixation.
FINDINGS
All devices caused a significant reduction of RoM during extension-flexion. The RoM during lateral bending was significantly reduced to 37% (of intact) by pedicle screws and 68% by facet fixation prototype. During axial rotation the RoM was significantly reduced to 52% by pedicle screws and to 86% by facet fixation prototype. The other devices had no significant influence on RoM during lateral bending and axial rotation.
INTERPRETATION
The facet fixation prototype provided less primary stability compared to pedicle screws, but had significant advantages over spinous process fixation techniques. The results encourage further testing of this implant as a minimal-invasive approach for posterior fixation.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30738222
pii: S0268-0033(18)30583-7
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.01.012
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

121-126

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Frank Hartmann (F)

Center for Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, Gemeinschaftsklinikum Mittelrhein, Ev. Stift Koblenz, Germany. Electronic address: hartmann.trauma@gmx-topmail.de.

Thomas Nusselt (T)

Center for Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, Gemeinschaftsklinikum Mittelrhein, Ev. Stift Koblenz, Germany. Electronic address: thomas.nusselt@gk.de.

Gerrit Maier (G)

University Hospital of Orthopaedic Surgery, Pius-Hospital, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Germany. Electronic address: gerrit.maier@uni-oldenburg.de.

Pol Maria Rommens (PM)

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany. Electronic address: pol.rommens@unimedizin-mainz.de.

Erol Gercek (E)

Center for Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, Gemeinschaftsklinikum Mittelrhein, Ev. Stift Koblenz, Germany. Electronic address: erol.gercek@gk.de.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH