Biomechanical investigation of lumbar hybrid stabilization in two-level posterior instrumentation
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsSpine biomechanics Dynamic stabilization Hybrid stabilization Lumbar fusion Topping-off Lumbar
The laboratory costs of the study were supported by Paradigm Spine GmbH.
Compliance with ethical standards
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.
- 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar