Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Regarding loads after spinal fusion, every level should be seen separately: a musculoskeletal analysis

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

Abstract

Introduction

The number of spinal fusion surgeries is steadily increasing and biomechanical consequences are still in debate. The aim of this study is to provide biomechanical insights into the sagittal balance of the spine and to compare spinal load before and after spinal fusion.

Method

The joint reaction forces of 52 patients were analyzed in proximo-distal and antero-posterior direction from the levels T12–L1 to L5–S1 using musculoskeletal simulations.

Results

In 104 simulations, pre-surgical forces were equal to post-surgical. The levels L4–L5 and T12–L1, however, showed increased spinal forces compression forces with higher sagittal displacement. Improved restauration of sagittal balance was accompanied by lower spinal load. AP shear stress, interestingly decreased with sagittal imbalance.

Conclusion

Imbalanced spines have a risk of increased compression forces at Th12–L1. L4–L5 always has increased spinal loads.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schwab F, Lafage V, Patel A, Farcy J (2009) Sagittal plane considerations and the pelvis in the adult patient. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 17:1828–1833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Haddas R, Lieberman IH (2017) A method to quantify the “cone of economy”. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5321-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J (2005) Classification of the normal variation in the sagittal alignment of the human lumbar spine and pelvis in the standing position. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 3:346–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Labelle H, Mac-Thiong J, Roussouly P (2011) Spino-pelvic sagittal balance of spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J S5:641–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hempfing A, Zenner J, Ferraris L, Meier O, Koller H (2011) Wiederherstellung der sagittalen balance bei der versorgung thorakaler und lumbaler wirbelkörperfrakturen. Orthopade 8:690–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Huec J, Roussouly P (2011) Sagittal spino-pelvic balance is a crucial analysis for normal and degenerative spine. Eur Spine J S5:556–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Le Huec JC, Faundez A, Dominguez D, Hoffmeyer P, Aunoble S (2015) Evidence showing the relationship between sagittal balance and clinical outcomes in surgical treatment of degenerative spinal diseases: a literature review. Int Orthop 1:87–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Le Huec JC, Hasegawa K (2016) Normative values for the spine shape parameters using 3D standing analysis from a database of 268 asymptomatic caucasian and japanese subjects. Eur Spine J 25(11):3630–3637

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Putzer M, Auer S, Malpica W, Suess F, Dendorfer S (2016) A numerical study to determine the effect of ligament stiffness on kinematics of the lumbar spine during flexion. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17:95. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-16-0942-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Putzer M, Ehrlich I, Rasmussen J, Gebbeken N, Dendorfer S (2016) Sensitivity of lumbar spine loading to anatomical parameters. J Biomech 6:953–958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wong KW, Luk KD, Leong JC, Wong SF, Wong KK (2006) Continuous dynamic spinal motion analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 4:414–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pearcy MJ (1985) Stereo radiography of lumbar spine motion. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 212:1–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Arshad R, Zander T, Dreischarf M, Schmidt H (2016) Influence of lumbar spine rhythms and intra-abdominal pressure on spinal loads and trunk muscle forces during upper body inclination. Med Eng Phys 4:333–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. de Zee M, Hansen L, Wong C, Rasmussen J, Simonsen EB (2007) A generic detailed rigid-body lumbar spine model. J Biomech 6:1219–1227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee RY, Wong TK (2002) Relationship between the movements of the lumbar spine and hip. Hum Mov Sci 4:481–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Barrey C, Jund J, Noseda O, Roussouly P (2007) Sagittal balance of the pelvis-spine complex and lumbar degenerative diseases. A comparative study about 85 cases. Eur Spine J 9:1459–1467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gottfried ON, Daubs MD, Patel AA, Dailey AT, Brodke DS (2009) Spinopelvic parameters in postfusion flatback deformity patients. Spine J 8:639–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tribus CB, Belanger TA, Zdeblick TA (1999) The effect of operative position and short-segment fusion on maintenance of sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1:58–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lazennec JY, Ramaré S, Arafati N, Laudet CG, Gorin M, Roger B et al (2000) Sagittal alignment in lumbosacral fusion: relations between radiological parameters and pain. Eur Spine J 1:47–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kumar MN, Baklanov A, Chopin D (2001) Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J 4:314–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wilke H, Neef P, Hinz B, Seidel H, Claes L (2001) Intradiscal pressure together with anthropometric data—a data set for the validation of models. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 16(Suppl 1):S111–S126

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, University Medical Centre Regensburg, Asklepios Klinikum Bad Abbach, Kaiser-Karl-V-Allee 3, 93077, Bad Abbach, Germany

    A. Benditz, J. F. Spörrer, S. Wolkerstorfer & J. Grifka

  2. Laboratory for Biomechanics, Regensburg Center of Biomedical Engineering, Galgenbergstrasse 30, 93053, Regensburg, Germany

    S. Auer, F. Suess & S. Dendorfer

Authors
  1. A. Benditz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Auer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. F. Spörrer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Wolkerstorfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. Grifka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. F. Suess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. S. Dendorfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Benditz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 2302 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Benditz, A., Auer, S., Spörrer, J.F. et al. Regarding loads after spinal fusion, every level should be seen separately: a musculoskeletal analysis. Eur Spine J 27, 1905–1910 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5476-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5476-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation