Comparative stability of the "Internal Fixator" and the "Universal Spine System" and the effect of crosslinking transfixating systems. A biomechanical in vitro study

Abstract

In this study, the three-dimensional stabilizing capabilities of the AO-Internal Fixator (IF) and the new Universal Spine System (USS) were investigated. Both devices were tested without and with the cross-link system (IF, IFC, USS, USSC). To determine biomechanical characteristics, a human thoracolumbar spine instability model with resection of the vertebral body Th12 was created. The vertebral body was replaced by a spacer and transpedicular posterior stabilization was performed from Th11 to L1. All devices reduced the range of motion (ROM) significantly compared to the values of the intact specimen. In flexion the IFC showed the highest reduction of ROM (85% of intact), followed by the USSC, USS and IF (79% of intact). In extension the ROM was restored again most by the IFC (52% of intact), followed by the USSC, IF and USS (44% of intact). In lateral bending stability was provided by the USSC (right 78% and left 81% of intact), followed in right lateral bending by the IF, IFC and USS and in left lateral bending by the USS, IF and IFC. In axial rotation the ROM was reduced primary by the IFC (right 51% and left 46% of intact), followed in right axial rotation by the USS, USSC and IF, in left axial rotation by the USSC, USS and IF. Additional stability by crosslinking has been provided in the IF and the USS in flexion and extension, in the USS in lateral bending and in the IF in axial rotation nonsignificantly. The neutral zone (NZ) was reduced by posterior instrumentation in flexion/extension and right/left lateral bending significantly. In axial rotation only the USSC decreased the NZ below intact levels. The study showed no statistical significant differences in the stabilizing capabilities of the USS compared to the IF. For both implants the cross-link system increased stability in the chosen instability model insignificantly only.