Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative biomechanical investigation of a modular dynamic lumbar stabilization system and the Dynesys system

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

Abstract

The goal of non-fusion stabilization is to reduce the mobility of the spine segment to less than that of the intact spine specimen, while retaining some residual motion. Several in vitro studies have been conducted on a dynamic system currently available for clinical use (Dynesys®). Under pure moment loading, a dependency of the biomechanical performance on spacer length has been demonstrated; this variability in implant properties is removed with a modular concept incorporating a discrete flexible element. An in vitro study was performed to compare the kinematic and stabilizing properties of a modular dynamic lumbar stabilization system with those of Dynesys, under the influence of an axial preload. Six human cadaver spine specimens (L1–S1) were tested in a spine loading apparatus. Flexibility measurements were performed by applying pure bending moments of 8 Nm, about each of the three principal anatomical axes, with a simultaneously applied axial preload of 400 N. Specimens were tested intact, and following creation of a defect at L3–L4, with the Dynesys implant, with the modular implant and, after removal of the hardware, the injury state. Segmental range of motion (ROM) was reduced for flexion–extension and lateral bending with both implants. Motion in flexion was reduced to less than 20% of the intact level, in extension to approximately 40% and in lateral bending a motion reduction to less than 40% was measured. In torsion, the total ROM was not significantly different from that of the intact level. The expectations for a flexible posterior stabilizing implant are not fulfilled. The assumption that a device which is particularly compliant in bending allows substantial intersegmental motion cannot be fully supported when one considers that such devices are placed at a location far removed from the natural rotation center of the intervertebral joint.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andersson GB (1999) Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet 354:581–585

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Beastall J, Karadimas E, Siddiqui M et al (2007) The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system: a preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance imaging findings. Spine 32(6):685–690

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cripton PA, Bruehlmann SB, Orr TE et al (2000) In vitro axial preload application during spine flexibility testing: towards reduced apparatus-related artefacts. J Biomech 33(12):1559–1568

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cripton PA, Jain GM, Wittenberg RH et al (2000) Load-sharing characteristics of stabilized lumbar spine segments. Spine 25(2):170–179

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dhillon N, Bass E, Lotz J (2001) Effect of frozen storage on the creep behaviour of human intervertebral discs. Spine 26(8):883–888

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Hodges SD (1999) Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion: a review of clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic studies. Am J Orthop 28:336–340

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Freudiger S, Dubois G, Lorrain M (1999) Dynamic neutralization of the lumbar spine confirmed on a new lumbar spine simulator in vitro. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 119:127–132

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 for the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 26:2521–2532 (discussion 32–34)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gédet P, Thistlethwaite PA, Ferguson SJ (2007) Minimizing errors during in vitro testing of multisegmental spine specimens: considerations for apparatus design and experimental protocol. J Biomech 40(8):1881–1885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jensen LM, Dawson JM, Springer S et al (2004) Kinematic evaluation of non-rigid posterior stabilization. Proceedings of the 50th annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society, San Francisco

  11. Lee CK (1988) Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine 13:375–377

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lehmann TR, Spratt KF, Tozzi JE et al (1987) Long-term follow-up of lower lumbar fusion patients. Spine 12(2):97–104

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Link HD (2002) History, design and biomechanics of the LINK SB Charite artificial disc. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):98–105

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mayer HM, Wiechert K, Korge A et al (2002) Minimally invasive total disc replacement: surgical technique and preliminary clinical results. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):124–130

    Google Scholar 

  15. McKinnon ME, Vickers MR, Ruddock VM et al (1997) Community studies of the health service implications of low back pain. Spine 22:2161–2166

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC et al (2006) Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system: an in vitro study. Eur Spine J 15:913–922

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Panjabi MM (1988) Biomechanical evaluation of spinal fixation devices: I. A conceptual framework. Spine 13(10):1129–1134

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Panjabi MM, Krag M, Summers D et al (1988) Biomechanical time-tolerance of fresh cadaveric human spine specimens. J Orthop Res 3(3):292–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Meade KP et al (1999) A follower load increases the load-carrying capacity of the lumbar spine in compression. Spine 24:1003–1009

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Schlegel JD, Smith JA, Schleusener RL (1996) Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbrosacral fusion. Spine 21:970–981

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 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(4):418–423

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T et al (2006) Influence of a dynamic stabilization system on load bearing of a bridged disc: an in vitro study of intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J 15(8):1276–1285

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Seitsalo S, Schlenzka D, Poussa M et al (1997) Disc degeneration in young patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis treated operatively or conservatively: a long-term follow-up. Eur Spine J 6(6):393–397

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 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):170–178

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tawackoli A, Marco R, Liebschner MA (2004) The effect of compressive axial preload on the flexibility of the thoracolumbar spine. Spine 29(9):988–993

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wilke H-J, Jungkunz B, Wenger K et al (1998) Spinal segment range of motion as a function of in vitro test conditions. Effects of exposure period, accumulated cycles, angular deformation rate and moisture condition. Anat Rec 251(1):15–19

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L (1998) Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J 7:148–154

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was partially supported by Synthes GmbH, Oberdorf and the National Research Program NRP 53 “Muskuloskeletal Health—Chronic Pain” of the Swiss National Science Foundation (Project 405340-104681).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Surgical Technology and Biomechanics, University of Bern, Stauffacherstrasse 78, 3014, Bern, Switzerland

    Philippe Gédet, Daniel Haschtmann, Paul A. Thistlethwaite & Stephen J. Ferguson

Authors
  1. Philippe Gédet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Haschtmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul A. Thistlethwaite
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephen J. Ferguson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen J. Ferguson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gédet, P., Haschtmann, D., Thistlethwaite, P.A. et al. Comparative biomechanical investigation of a modular dynamic lumbar stabilization system and the Dynesys system. Eur Spine J 18, 1504–1511 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1077-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1077-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation