Immediate Biomechanical Effects of Lumbar Posterior Dynamic Stabilisation

Chapter

Abstract

The current premise, on which spinal fusion is offered to patients with a painful lumbar motion segment, is that the pain arises secondary to abnormal motion or “instability”. By the elimination of this motion, one hopes to eliminate the pain. However, results following spinal fusion are far from predictable, with reported satisfactory clinical results ranging from 46 to 82% [1, 2]. Furthermore, many patients complain of postural or positional pain occurring without motion, suggesting that low back pain may have aetiologies relating to abnormal load transmission rather than abnormal kinematics.

References

  1. 1.
    Wetzel FT, LaRocca SH, Lowery GL (1994) The treatment of lumbar spinal pain syndromes diagnosed by discography: lumbar arthrodesis. Spine 19:792–800CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thomsen K, Christensen FB, Eiskjaer SP et al (1997) 1997 Volvo Award Winner in clinical studies. The effect of pedicle screw insertion on functional outcome and fusion rates in postero-lateral lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective randomised clinical study. Spine 22:2813–2822CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McNally DS, Adams MA (1992) Internal intervertebral disc mechanics as revealed by stress profilometry. Spine 17:66–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moore RJ, Vernon-Roberts B, Fraser RD et al (1996) The origin and fate of herniated lumbar intervertebral disc tissue. Spine 21:2149–2155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McNally DS, Shackleford IM, Goodship AE et al (1996) In vivo stress measurement can predict pain on discography. Spine 21:2580–2587CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mulholland RC, Sengupta DK (2002) Rationale, principles and experimental evaluation of the concept of soft stabilisation. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):198–205Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Troum OM, Crues JV III (2004) The young adult with hip pain: diagnosis and medical treatment, circa 2004. Clin Orthop 418:9–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nockels RP (2005) Dynamic stabilisation in the surgical management of painful lumbar spinal disorders. Spine 30(Suppl 16):S68–S72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O (2002) The dynamic neutralisation system for the spine: a multi-centre study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):S170–S178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grob D, Benini A, Junge A, Mannion AF (2005) Clinical experience with the Dynesys semi-rigid fixation system for the lumbar spine. Surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years. Spine 30(3):324–331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Welch WC, Cheng BC, Awad TE et al (2007) Clinical outcomes of the Dynesys dynamic neutralisation system: one-year preliminary results. Neurosurg Focus 22(1):E8:1–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T et al (2003) Dynamic stabilisation of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments. J Spinal Disord Tech 16(4):418–423PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC et al (2006) Biomechanical characterisation of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilisation system: an in-vitro study. Eur Spine J 15:913–922CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aylott CEW, McKinlay KG, Freeman BJC et al (2005) Dynesys (dynamic neutralisation system for the spine): acute biomechanical effects on the human cadaveric lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg 87B Orthop Proc Suppl III:234Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T et al (2006) Influence of a dynamic stabilisation system on load-bearing of a bridged disc: an in-vitro study of intra-discal pressure. Eur Spine J 15:1276–1285CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cheng BC, Gordon J, Cheng J, Welch WC (2007) Immediate biomechanical effects of lumbar posterior dynamic stabilisation above a circumferential fusion. Spine 32(23):2551–2557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schulte TL, Hurschler C, Haversath M et al (2008) The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants on the range of motion of lumbar motion segments after decompression. Eur Spine J 17:1057–1065CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Spinal Surgery, Level 3, Theatre BlockRoyal Adelaide HospitalAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations