Skip to main content

Optimal stiffness of a pedicle-screw-based motion preservation implant for the lumbar spine

European Spine Journal volume 21, pages 666–673 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

Pedicle-screw-based dynamic implants are intended to preserve intervertebral mobility while releasing certain spinal structures. The aim of the study was to determine the as yet unknown optimal stiffness value of the longitudinal rods that fulfils best these opposing tasks.

Methods

A finite element model of the lumbar spine was used which includes the posterior implant at level L4/5. More than 250 variations of this model were generated by varying the diameter of the longitudinal rods between 6 and 12 mm and their elastic modulus between 10 MPa and 200 MPa. The loading cases flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation were simulated. Evaluated optimization criteria were the ranges of motion, forces in the facet joints, posterior bulgings of the intervertebral disc and the intradiscal pressures. Various objective functions were evaluated.

Results

The results show that the objective values depend more on the axial stiffness of the rods than on bending and torsional stiffness, rod diameter and elastic modulus. The optimal stiffness value for most of the investigated objective functions is approximately 50 N/mm and is achieved, e.g. using a rod diameter of 6 mm and an elastic modulus of 50 MPa. The design with the least axial stiffness was the best one with regard to the mobility. The forces in the facet joints and the intradiscal pressures were reduced mostly by an implant with the highest axial stiffness. When minimal posterior disc bulging was the criterion, the optimal axial stiffness was also approximately 50 N/mm.

Conclusions

The optimal axial stiffness of a pedicle-screw-based motion preservation implant for the lumbar spine is approximately 50 N/mm.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Ahn YH, Chen WM, Lee KY, Park KW, Lee SJ (2008) Comparison of the load-sharing characteristics between pedicle-based dynamic and rigid rod devices. Biomed Mater 3:44101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rohlmann A, Nabil Boustani H, Bergmann G, Zander T (2010) Effect of a pedicle-screw-based motion preservation system on lumbar spine biomechanics: a probabilistic finite element study with subsequent sensitivity analysis. J Biomech 43:2963–2969

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O (2002) The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel nonfusion system. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl. 2):S170–S178

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Schmidt H, Heuer F, Wilke HJ (2009) Which axial and bending stiffnesses of posterior implants are required to design a flexible lumbar stabilization system? J Biomech 42:48–54

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rohlmann A, Burra NK, Zander T, Bergmann G (2007) Comparison of the effects of bilateral posterior dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis. Eur Spine J 16:1223–1231

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zander T, Rohlmann A, Calisse J, Bergmann G (2001) Estimation of muscle forces in the lumbar spine during upper-body inclination. Clin Biomech 16:S73–S80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rohlmann A, Bauer L, Zander T, Bergmann G, Wilke HJ (2006) Determination of trunk muscle forces for flexion and extension by using a validated finite element model of the lumbar spine and measured in vivo data. J Biomech 39:981–989

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zander T, Rohlmann A, Bergmann G (2009) Influence of different artificial disc kinematics on spine biomechanics. Clin Biomech 24:135–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zander T, Rohlmann A, Bock B, Bergmann G (2007) Biomechanische Konsequenzen von verschiedenen Positionierungen bewegungserhaltender Bandscheibenimplantate. Eine Finite-Elemente-Studie an der Lendenwirbelsäule. Orthopade 36:205–211

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rohlmann A, Zander T, Rao M, Bergmann G (2009) Applying a follower load delivers realistic results for simulating standing. J Biomech 42:1520–1526

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dreischarf M, Rohlmann A, Bergmann G, Zander T (submitted) Optimised in vitro applicable loads for the simulation of lateral bending in the lumbar spine

  13. Dreischarf M, Rohlmann A, Bergmann G, Zander T (2011) Optimised loads for the simulation of axial rotation in the lumbar spine. J Biomech 44:2323–2327

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rohlmann A, Zander T, Rao M, Bergmann G (2009) Realistic loading conditions for upper body bending. J Biomech 42:884–890

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kettler A, Rohlmann F, Ring C, Mack C, Wilke HJ (2011) Do early stages of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration really cause instability? Evaluation of an in vitro database. Eur Spine J 20:578–584

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rohlmann A, Zander T, Schmidt H, Wilke H-J, Bergmann G (2006) Analysis of the influence of disc degeneration on the mechanical behaviour of a lumbar motion segment using the finite element method. J Biomech 39:2484–2490

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ueno K, Liu YK (1987) A three-dimensional nonlinear finite element model of lumbar intervertebral joint in torsion. J Biomech Eng 109:200–209

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Shirazi-Adl A, Ahmed AM, Shrivastava SC (1986) Mechanical response of a lumbar motion segment in axial torque alone and combined with compression. Spine 11:914–927

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Eberlein R, Holzapfel GA, Schulze-Bauer CAJ (2000) An anisotropic model for annulus tissue and enhanced finite element analysis of intact lumbar disc bodies. Comp Meth Biomech Biomed Eng 4:209–229

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nolte LP, Panjabi MM, Oxland TR (1990) Biomechanical properties of lumbar spinal ligaments. In: Heimke G, Soltesz U, Lee AJC (eds) Clinical Implant Materials Advances in Biomaterials. Elsevier, Heidelberg, pp 663–668

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sharma M, Langrana NA, Rodriguez J (1995) Role of ligaments and facets in lumbar spinal stability. Spine 20:887–900

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study has been supported in part by Spinelab AG, Winterthur, Switzerland and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Bonn, Germany.

Conflict of interest

The sponsors were not involved in the analysis and interpretation of any data, in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Julius Wolff Institute, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany

    Antonius Rohlmann, Thomas Zander, Georg Bergmann & Hadi N. Boustani

Authors
  1. Antonius Rohlmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Zander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Georg Bergmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hadi N. Boustani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonius Rohlmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rohlmann, A., Zander, T., Bergmann, G. et al. Optimal stiffness of a pedicle-screw-based motion preservation implant for the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 21, 666–673 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2047-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2047-4

Keywords

  • Biomechanics
  • Dynamic implant
  • Stiffness
  • Finite element method
  • Optimization