Skip to main content
Log in

How does spinal canal decompression and dorsal stabilization affect segmental mobility? A biomechanical study

  • Basic Science
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

When decompression of the lumbar spinal canal is performed, segmental stability might be affected. Exactly which anatomical structures can thereby be resected without interfering with stability, and when, respectively how, additional stabilization is essential, has not been adequately investigated so far. The present investigation describes kinetic changes in a surgically treated motion segment as well as in its adjacent segments.

Material and methods

Segmental biomechanical examination of nine human lumbar cadaver spines (L1 to L5) was performed without preload in a spine-testing apparatus by means of a precise, ultrasound-guided measuring system. Thus, samples consisting of four free motion segments were made available. Besides measurements in the native (untreated) spine specimen further measurements were done after progressive resection of dorsal elements like lig. flavum, hemilaminectomy, laminectomy and facetectomy. The segment was then stabilised by means of a rigid system (ART®) and by means of a dynamic, transpedicularly fixed system (Dynesys®).

Results

For the analysis, range of motion (ROM) values and separately viewed data of the respective direction of motion were considered in equal measure. A very high reproducibility of the individual measurements could be verified. In the sagittal and frontal plane, flavectomy and hemilaminectomy did not achieve any relevant change in the ROM in both directions. This applies to the segment operated on as well as to the adjacent segments examined. Resection of the facet likewise does not lead to any distinct increase of mobility in the operated segment as far as flexion and right/left bending is concerned. In extension a striking increase in mobility of more than 1° compared to the native value can be perceived in the operated segment. Stabilization with the rigid and dynamic system effect an almost equal reduction of flexion/extension and right/left bending. In the adjacent segments, a slightly higher mobility is to be noted for rigid stabilization than for dynamic stabilisation. A linear regression analysis shows that in flexion/extension monosegmental rigid stabilisation is compensated predominantly in the first cranial adjacent segment. In case of a dynamic stabilisation the compensation is distributed among the first and second cranial, and by 20% in the caudal adjacent segment.

Summary

Monosegmental decompression of the lumbar spinal canal does not essentially destabilise the motion segment during in vitro conditions. Regarding rigid or dynamic stabilisation, the ROM does not differ within the operated segment, but the distribution of the compensatory movement is different.

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

Access this article

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cunningham BW, Kotani Y, McNulty PS, Cappuccino A, McAfee PC (1997) The effect of spinal destabilization and instrumentation on lumbar intradiscal pressure. An in vitro biomechanical analysis. Spine 22:2655–2663

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Detwiler PW, Spetzler CB, Taylor SB, Crawford NR, Porter RW, Sonntag VK (2003) Biomechanical comparison of facet-sparing laminectomy and Christmas tree laminectomy. J Neurosurg 99(2 Suppl):214–220

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Quint U, Wilke HJ, Loer F, Claes LE (1998) Functional sequelae of surgical decompression of the lumbar spine—a biomechanical study in vitro. Z Orthop 136(4):350–357

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rohlmann A, Neller S, Bergmann G, Graichen F, Claes L, Wilke HJ (2001) Effect of an internal fixator and a bone graft on intersegmental spinal motion and intradiscal pressure in the adjacent regions. Eur Spine J 10:301–308

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gercek E, Hartmann F, Kuhn S, Degreif J, Rommens PM, Rudig L (2008) Dynamic angular three-dimensional measurement of multisegmental thoracolumbar motion in vivo. Spine 33(21):2326–2333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ashton-Miller JA, Schultz AB (1997) Biomechanics of the human spine. In: Mow VC, Hayes WC (eds) Basic orthopaedic biomechanics. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, pp 353–393

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jackson RP, McManus AC (1994) Radiographic analysis of sagittal plane alignment and balance in standing volunteers and patients with low back pain matched for age, sex, and size. Spine 19:1611–1618

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC, Keynan O, Wilson DR, Oxland TR (2006) Biomechanical characterization of the three dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system: an in vitro study. Eur Spine J 15:913–922

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson ANA, Blood E, Hanscom B, Herkowitz H, Cammisa F, Albert T, Boden SD, Hilibrand A, Goldberg H, Berven S, An H (2008) Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 358:794–810

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Weinhoffer SL, Guyer RD, Herbert M, Griffith SL (1995) Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion. A cadaveric study. Spine 20(5):526–531

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hilibrand AS, Robbins M (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 4(6 Suppl):190S–194S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lotz JC, Colliou OK, Chin JR, Duncan NA, Liebenberg E (1998) Compression-induced degeneration of the intervertebral disc: an in vivo mouse model and finite-element study. Spine 23(23):2493–2506

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Court C, Colliou OK, Chin JR, Liebenberg E, Bradford DS, Lotz JC (2001) The effect of static in vivo bending on the murine intervertebral disc. Spine J 1(4):239–245

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wai EK, Santos ER, Morcom RA, Fraser RD (2006) Magnetic resonance imaging 20 years after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 31(17):1952–1956

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Penta M, Sandhu A, Fraser RD (1995) Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of disc degeneration 10 years after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 20(6):743–747

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rolander SD (1966) Motion of the lumbar spine with special reference to the stabilizing effect of posterior fusion. An experimental study on autopsy specimens. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 90:1–144

    Google Scholar 

  17. Schulte TL, Hurschler C, Haversath M, Liljenquist U, Bullmann V, Filler TJ, Osada N, Fallenberg EM, Hackenberg L (2008) The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants on the range of motion of lumbar motions segments after decompression. Eur Spine J 17:1057–1065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rao RD, Wang M, Singhal P, McGrady LM, Rao S (2002) Intradiscal pressure and kinematic behavior of lumbar spine after bilateral laminotomy and laminectomy. Spine J 2(5):320–326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, Claes L, Wilke HJ (2006) Influence of a dynamic stabilisation system on load bearing of a bridged disc: an in vitro study of intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J 15(8):1276–1285

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rohlmann A, Zander T, Burra NK, Bergmann G (2005) Effect of an interspinous implant on loads in the lumbar spine. Biomed Tech (Berl) 50(10):343–347

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk J, Perka C (2004) Die Anwendung eines dynamischen Pedikelschraubensystems (DYNESYS™) bei lumbalen Segmentdegenerationen—ein Vergleich klinischer und radiologischer Ergebnisse bei unterschiedlichen Indikationen. Z Orthop 142:166–173

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O (2002) The dynamic neutralisation system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J 11(S2):S170–S178

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schaeren S, Broger I, Jeanneret B (2008) Minimum four-year follow-up of spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and dynamic stabilization. Spine 33(18):E636–E642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee SE, Park SB, Jahng TA, Chung CK, Kim HJ (2008) Clinical experience of the dynamic stabilization system for the degenerative spine disease. J Korean Neurosug Soc 43(5):221–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vaga S, Brayda-Bruno M, Perona F, Fornari M, Raimondi MT, Petruzzi M, Grava G, Costa F, Caiani EG, Lamartina C (2009) Molecular MR imaging for the evaluation of the effect of dynamic stabilization on lumbar intervertebral discs. Eur Spine J 18(Supp 1):S40–S48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Grob D, Benini A, Junge A, Mannion AF (2005) Clinical experience with the Dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine. Surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years. Spine 30(3):324–331

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karl-Stefan Delank.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Delank, KS., Gercek, E., Kuhn, S. et al. How does spinal canal decompression and dorsal stabilization affect segmental mobility? A biomechanical study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130, 285–292 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-009-1002-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-009-1002-x

Keywords

Navigation