European Spine Journal

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 913–922 | Cite as

Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system: an in vitro study

  • Christina A. Niosi
  • Qingan A. Zhu
  • Derek C. Wilson
  • Ory Keynan
  • David R. Wilson
  • Thomas R. Oxland
Original Article


The Dynesys, a flexible posterior stabilization system that provides an alternative to fusion, is designed to preserve intersegmental kinematics and alleviate loading at the facet joints. Recent biomechanical evidence suggests that the overall range of motion (ROM) with the Dynesys is less than the intact spine. The purpose of this investigation was to conduct a comprehensive characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys and determine if the length of the Dynesys polymer spacer contributes to differences in the kinematic behaviour at the implanted level. Ten cadaveric lumbar spine segments (L2–L5) were tested by applying a pure moment of ±7.5 Nm in flexion–extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, with and without a follower preload of 600 N. Test conditions included: (a) intact; (b) injury; (c) injury stabilized with Dynesys at L3–L4 (standard spacer); (d) long spacer (+2 mm); and (e) short spacer (−2 mm). Intervertebral rotations were measured using an optoelectronic camera system. The intersegmental range of motion (ROM), neutral zone (NZ), and three-dimensional helical axis of motion (HAM) were calculated. Statistical significance of changes in ROM, NZ, and HAM was determined using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Student–Newman–Keuls post-hoc analysis with P<0.05. Implantation of the standard length Dynesys significantly reduced ROM compared to the intact and injured specimens, with the least significant changes seen in axial rotation. Injury typically increased the NZ, but implantation of the Dynesys restored the NZ to a magnitude less that that of the intact spine. The Dynesys produced a significant posterior shift in the HAM in flexion–extension and axial rotation. The spacer length had a significant effect on ROM with the long spacer resulting in the largest ROM in all loading directions without a follower preload. The largest differences were in axial rotation. A 4 mm increase in spacer length led to an average intersegmental motion increase of 30% in axial rotation, 23% in extension, 14% in flexion, and 11% in lateral bending. There were no significant changes in NZ with different spacer lengths. Typically, the short spacer caused a greater shift and a greater change in orientation of the HAM than the long spacer. The long spacer resulted in a ROM and a motion pattern, as represented by the HAM, that was closer to that seen in an intact specimen. The results of this study suggest that the length of the Dynesys spacer altered the segmental position and therefore affected kinematic behaviour.


Biomechanics Lumbar spine Non-fusion Stabilization Surgical treatment 



The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the funding from the Synos Foundation, Switzerland, Zimmer GmbH, and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). The experiments in this study complied with the current testing laws in Canada and were approved by the University of British Columbia Clinical Research Ethics Board.


  1. 1.
    Andersson GB (1999) Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet 354:581–585CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Hodges SD (1999) Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion: a review of clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic studies. Am J Orthop 28:336–340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Freudiger S, Dubois G, Lorrain M (1999) Dynamic neutralisation of the lumbar spine confirmed on a new lumbar spine simulator in vitro. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 119:127–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, et al (2001) Volvo award winner in clinical studies: lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 26:2521–2532 (discussion 32–34)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fujiwara A, Lim TH, An HS, et al (2000) The effect of disc degeneration and facet joint osteoarthritis on the segmental flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine 25:3036–3044CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gardner-Morse MG, Stokes IA (2003) Physiological axial compressive preloads increase motion segment stiffness, linearity and hysteresis in all six degrees of freedom for small displacements about the neutral posture. J Orthop Res 21:547–552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goertzen DJ, Lane C, Oxland TR (2004) Neutral zone and range of motion in the spine are greater with stepwise loading than with a continuous loading protocol. An in vitro porcine investigation. J Biomech 37:257–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kinzel GL, Hall AS Jr, Hillberry BM (1972) Measurement of the total motion between two body segments. I. Analytical development. J Biomech 5:93–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee CK (1988) Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine 13:375–377PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lund T, Rathonyi G, Schlenzka D, et al (1999) The external spinal fixator does not reduce anterior column motion under axial compressive loads. A mechanical in vitro study. Acta Orthop Scand 70:37–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McKinnon ME, Vickers MR, Ruddock VM, et al (1997) Community studies of the health service implications of low back pain. Spine 22:2161–2166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mimura M, Panjabi MM, Oxland TR, et al (1994) Disc degeneration affects the multidirectional flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine 19:1371–1380PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC, et al (2004) Does spacer length of dynamic posterior stablization system have an effect on range of motion? ISSLS 31st Annual Meeting (Poster) Porto, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Panjabi MM, Krag MH, Goel VK (1981) A technique for measurement and description of three-dimensional six degree-of-freedom motion of a body joint with an application to the human spine. J Biomech 14:447–460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Panjabi MM, Oxland TR, Yamamoto I, et al (1994) Mechanical behavior of the human lumbar and lumbosacral spine as shown by three-dimensional load–displacement curves. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76:413–424PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Meade KP, et al (1999) A follower load increases the load-carrying capacity of the lumbar spine in compression. Spine 24:1003–1009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Carandang G, et al (2003) Effect of compressive follower preload on the flexion–extension response of the human lumbar spine. J Orthop Res 21:540–546CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rohlmann A, Neller S, Claes L, et al (2001) Influence of a follower load on intradiscal pressure and intersegmental rotation of the lumbar spine. Spine 26:E557–E561CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schlegel JD, Smith JA, Schleusener RL (1996) Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbosacral fusions. Spine 21:970–981CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, et al (2003) Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:418–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O (2002) The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):S170–S178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Woltring HJ, Huiskes R, de Lange A, et al (1985) Finite centroid and helical axis estimation from noisy landmark measurements in the study of human joint kinematics. J Biomech 18:379–389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yamamoto I, Panjabi MM, Crisco T, et al (1989) Three-dimensional movements of the whole lumbar spine and lumbosacral joint. Spine 14:1256–1260PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina A. Niosi
    • 1
  • Qingan A. Zhu
    • 1
  • Derek C. Wilson
    • 1
  • Ory Keynan
    • 1
  • David R. Wilson
    • 1
  • Thomas R. Oxland
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Orthopaedic Engineering Research, Departments of Mechanical Engineering and OrthopaedicsUniversity of British Columbia and Vancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations