Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biomechanical investigation of lumbar hybrid stabilization in two-level posterior instrumentation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Hybrid stabilization with a dynamic implant has been suggested to avoid adjacent segment disease by creating a smoother transition zone from the instrumented segments to the untreated levels above. This study aims to characterize the transition zones of two-level posterior instrumentation strategies for elucidating biomechanical differences between rigid fixation and the hybrid stabilization approach with a pedicle screw-based dynamic implant.

Methods

Eight human lumbar spines (L1–5) were loaded in a spine tester with pure moments of 7.5 Nm and with a hybrid loading protocol. The range of motion (ROM) of all segments for both loading protocols was evaluated and normalized to the native ROM.

Results

For pure moment loading, ROM of the segments cranial to both instrumentations were not affected by the type of instrumentation (p > 0.5). The dynamic instrumentation in L3–4 reduced the ROM compared to intact (p < 0.05) but allowed more motion than the rigid fixation of the same segment (p < 0.05). Under hybrid loading testing, the cranial segments (L1–2, L2–3) had a significant higher ROM for both instrumentations compared to the intact (p < 0.05). Comparing the two instrumentations with each other, the rigid fixation resulted in a higher increased ROM of L1–2 and L2–3 than hybrid stabilization.

Conclusions

Regardless of the implant, two-level posterior instrumentation was accompanied by a considerable amount of compensatory movement in the cranial untreated segments under the hybrid protocol. Hybrid stabilization, however, showed a significant reduction of this compensatory movement in comparison to rigid fixation. These results could support the surgical strategy of hybrid stabilization, whereas the concept of topping-off, including a healthy segment, is discouraged.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sears WR, Sergides IG, Kazemi N, Smith M, White GJ, Osburg B (2011) Incidence and prevalence of surgery at segments adjacent to a previous posterior lumbar arthrodesis. Spine J 11:11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2010.09.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pan A, Hai Y, Yang J, Zhou L, Chen X, Guo H (2016) Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal fusion compared with motion-preservation procedures: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 25:1522–1532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4415-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Norvell DC, Dettori JR, Skelly AC, Riew KD, Chapman JR, Anderson PA (2012) Methodology for the systematic reviews on an adjacent segment pathology. Spine 37:10–17. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826cd9c8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lawrence BD, Wang J, Arnold PM, Hermsmeyer J, Norvell DC, Brodke DS (2012) Predicting the risk of adjacent segment pathology after lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Spine 37:123–132. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826d60d8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. He B, Yan L, Guo H, Liu T, Wang X, Hao D (2014) The difference in superior adjacent segment pathology after lumbar posterolateral fusion by using 2 different pedicle screw insertion techniques in 9-year minimum follow-up. Spine 39:1093–1098. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ou CY, Lee TC, Lee TH, Huang YH (2015) Impact of body mass index on adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion for degenerative spine disease. Neurosurgery 76:396–401. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000627

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yamasaki K, Hoshino M, Omori K et al (2017) Risk factors of adjacent segment disease after transforaminal inter-body fusion for degenerative lumbar disease. Spine 42:E86–E92. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001728

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang H, Ma L, Yang D et al (2017) Incidence and risk factors of adjacent segment disease following posterior decompression and instrumented fusion for degenerative lumbar disorders. Medicine 96:e6032. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000006032

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Putzier M, Hoff E, Tohtz S, Gross C, Perka C, Strube P (2010) Dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion: part II. No clinical benefit for asymptomatic, initially degenerated adjacent segments after 6 years follow-up. Eur Spine J 19:2181–2189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1517-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Strube P, Tohtz S, Hoff E, Gross C, Perka C, Putzier M (2010) Dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion: part I. Biomechanical effects on lumbar spinal motion. Eur Spine J 19:2171–2180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1549-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Korovessis P, Repantis T, Zacharatos S, Zafiropoulos A (2009) Does Wallis implant reduce adjacent segment degeneration above lumbosacral instrumented fusion? Eur Spine J 18:830–840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0976-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Fleege C, Rickert M, Werner I, Rauschmann M, Arabmotlagh M (2016) Hybrid stabilization technique with spinal fusion and interlaminar device to reduce the length of fusion and to protect symptomatic adjacent segments: clinical long-term follow-up. Orthopade 45:770–779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-016-3312-3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Li C, Liu L, Shi JY, Yan KZ, Shen WZ, Yang ZR (2016) Clinical and biomechanical researches of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rods for semi-rigid lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Neurosurg Rev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-016-0763-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Andrieu K, Allain J, Longis PM, Steib JP, Beaurain J, Delécrin J (2017) Comparison between total disc replacement and hybrid construct at two lumbar levels with minimum follow-up of 2 years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 103:39–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2016.06.018

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tachibana N, Kawamura N, Kobayashi D et al (2017) Preventive effect of dynamic stabilization against adjacent segment degeneration after posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 42:25–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wilke HJ, Heuer F, Schmidt H (2009) Prospective design delineation and subsequent in vitro evaluation of a new posterior dynamic stabilization system. Spine 34:255–261. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181920e9c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Knop C, Lange U, Bastian L, Blauth M (2000) Three-dimensional motion analysis with Synex. Comparative biomechanical test series with a new vertebral body replacement for the thoracolumbar spine. Eur Spine J 9:472–485

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lange T, Schmoelz W, Gosheger G et al (2017) Is a gradual reduction of stiffness on top of posterior instrumentation possible with a suitable proximal implant? A biomechanical study. Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.03.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L (1998) Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J 7:148–154

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Panjabi MM (2007) Hybrid multidirectional test method to evaluate spinal adjacent-level effects. Clin Biomech 22:257–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.08.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, Claes L, Wilke HJ (2003) Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:418–423

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Volkheimer D, Malakoutian M, Oxland TR, Wilke HJ (2015) Limitations of current in vitro test protocols for investigation of instrumented adjacent segment biomechanics: critical analysis of the literature. Eur Spine J 24:1882–1892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4040-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mageswaran P, Techy F, Colbrunn RW, Bonner TF, McLain RF (2012) Hybrid dynamic stabilization: a biomechanical assessment of adjacent and supraadjacent levels of the lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine 17:232–242. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.6.SPINE111054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cheng BC, Gordon J, Cheng J, Welch WC (2007) Immediate biomechanical effects of lumbar posterior dynamic stabilization above a circumferential fusion. Spine 32:2551–2557. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318158cdbe

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Malakoutian M, Street J, Wilke HJ, Stavness I, Dvorak M, Fels S, Oxland T (2016) Role of muscle damage on loading at the level adjacent to a lumbar spine fusion: a biomechanical analysis. Eur Spine J 25:2929–2937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4686-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The laboratory costs of the study were supported by Paradigm Spine GmbH.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Aldemar Andres Hegewald and Sebastian Hartmann contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Helios Ostseeklinik Damp, Seute-Deern-Ring 20, 24351, Damp, Germany

    Aldemar Andres Hegewald

  2. Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Mannheimm, Heidelberg University, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany

    Aldemar Andres Hegewald

  3. Department of Neurosurgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Sebastian Hartmann & Claudius Thomé

  4. Department of Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Alexander Keiler & Werner Schmoelz

  5. Department of Neurosurgery, Klinikum Dortmund, Münsterstraße 240, 44145, Dortmund, Germany

    Kai Michael Scheufler

Authors
  1. Aldemar Andres Hegewald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sebastian Hartmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexander Keiler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kai Michael Scheufler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Claudius Thomé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Werner Schmoelz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Werner Schmoelz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

A. A. Hegewald received speaker honorarium and worked as a clinical consultant for Paradigm Spine GmbH. All other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The authors have full control of all primary data and agree to allow the journal to review the data if requested.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hegewald, A.A., Hartmann, S., Keiler, A. et al. Biomechanical investigation of lumbar hybrid stabilization in two-level posterior instrumentation. Eur Spine J 27, 1887–1894 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5415-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5415-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation