Rigid and flexible spinal stabilization devices: A biomechanical comparison

被引:79
作者
Galbusera, Fabio [1 ,2 ]
Bellini, Chiara Maria [1 ]
Anasetti, Federica [1 ]
Ciavarro, Cristina [1 ]
Lovi, Alessio [1 ]
Brayda-Bruno, Marco [1 ]
机构
[1] IRCCS Ist Ortoped Galeazzi, I-20161 Milan, Italy
[2] Univ Ulm, Inst Orthoped Res & Biomech, Ulm, Germany
关键词
Low back pain; Finite element; Flexible; Dynamic stabilization; Semirigid; FINITE-ELEMENT-ANALYSIS; LOW-BACK-PAIN; LUMBAR SPINE; DYNAMIC STABILIZATION; IMPLANTS; DESIGN; SYSTEM; MODEL;
D O I
10.1016/j.medengphy.2010.11.018
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
The surgical devices for the treatment of degenerative disc disease are based on different concepts (rods for spine fusion, ROM-restricting or load-bearing devices for dynamic stabilization). In the present work, the effects of some stabilization systems on the biomechanics of the lumbar spine were investigated by means of a finite element model of the L2-L5 spine segment. Pedicular screws and stabilization devices were added at L4-L5. Different rods were considered: stainless steel, titanium, PEEK and the composite ostaPek. Two pedicular devices aimed at motion preservation were also considered: the FlexPLUS and the DSS. All models were loaded by using the hybrid protocol in flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation. The spine biomechanics after implantation resulted significantly sensitive to the design and the materials of the device. The impact of all rods in reducing the ROM was found to be critical (> 70% in flexion and extension). The dynamic devices were able to preserve the motion of the segment, but with different performances (ROM reduction from 30% (DSS) to 50% (FlexPLUS)). The shared load was more sensitive to the elastic modulus of the device material than the calculated ROMs (from 7% (PEEK) to 48% (stainless steel)). Regarding devices aimed at motion preservation, the authors suggest to distinguish "flexible" devices, which are able to preserve only a minor fraction (e.g. at most 50%) of the physiological ROM, from "dynamic" devices, which induce a smaller ROM restriction. However, the optimal characteristics of a stabilization device for the treatment of degenerative disc disease still need to be determined by means of basic science and clinical studies. (C) 2010 IPEM. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:490 / 496
页数:7
相关论文
共 29 条
  • [1] Biomechanics of the lumbar spine after dynamic stabilization
    Bellini, Chiara Maria
    Galbusera, Fabio
    Raimondi, Manuela T.
    Mineo, Gittseppe V.
    Brayda-Bruno, Marco
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES, 2007, 20 (06): : 423 - 429
  • [2] BENZEL EC, 2001, BIOMECHANICS SPINE S, P19
  • [3] Biomechanical responses of the intervertebral joints to static and vibrational loading: a finite element study
    Cheung, JTM
    Zhang, M
    Chow, DHK
    [J]. CLINICAL BIOMECHANICS, 2003, 18 (09) : 790 - 799
  • [4] *COLIGNE AG, OSTAPEK COMP ROD SYS
  • [5] Cowin SC., 1991, BONE MECH, P97
  • [6] Load-sharing characteristics of stabilized lumbar spine segments
    Cripton, PA
    Jain, GM
    Wittenberg, RH
    Nolte, LP
    [J]. SPINE, 2000, 25 (02) : 170 - 179
  • [7] Test protocols for evaluation of spinal implants
    Goel, VK
    Panjabi, MM
    Patwardhan, AG
    Dooris, AP
    Serhan, H
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2006, 88A : 103 - 109
  • [8] Harmon P H, 1964, Clin Orthop Relat Res, V34, P92
  • [9] QUANTITATIVE MORPHOLOGY OF THE LATERAL LIGAMENTS OF THE SPINE - ASSESSMENT OF THEIR IMPORTANCE IN MAINTAINING LATERAL STABILITY
    JIANG, HX
    RASO, JV
    MOREAU, MJ
    RUSSELL, G
    HILL, DL
    BAGNALL, KM
    [J]. SPINE, 1994, 19 (23) : 2676 - 2682
  • [10] Finite element analysis of the spine: Towards a framework of verification, validation and sensitivity analysis
    Jones, Alison C.
    Wilcox, Ruth K.
    [J]. MEDICAL ENGINEERING & PHYSICS, 2008, 30 (10) : 1287 - 1304