Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Oct;18(10):1478-85.
doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-1052-3. Epub 2009 Jun 6.

Non-fusion instrumentation of the lumbar spine with a hinged pedicle screw rod system: an in vitro experiment

Affiliations

Non-fusion instrumentation of the lumbar spine with a hinged pedicle screw rod system: an in vitro experiment

Werner Schmoelz et al. Eur Spine J. 2009 Oct.

Abstract

In advanced stages of degenerative disease of the lumbar spine instrumented spondylodesis is still the golden standard treatment. However, in recent years dynamic stabilisation devices are being implanted to treat the segmental instability due to iatrogenic decompression or segmental degeneration. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the stabilising effect of a classical pedicle screw/rod combination, with a moveable hinge joint connection between the screw and rod allowing one degree of freedom (cosmicMIA). Six human lumbar spines (L2-5) were loaded in a spine tester with pure moments of +/-7.5 Nm in lateral bending, flexion/extension and axial rotation. The range of motion (ROM) and the neutral zone were determined for the following states: (1) intact, (2) monosegmental dynamic instrumentation (L4-5), (3) bisegmental dynamic instrumentation (L3-5), (4) bisegmental decompression (L3-5), (5) bisegmental dynamic instrumentation (L3-5) and (6) bisegmental rigid instrumentation (L3-5). Compared to the intact, with monosegmental instrumentation (2) the ROM of the treated segment was reduced to 47, 40 and 77% in lateral bending, flexion/extension and axial rotation, respectively. Bisegmental dynamic instrumentation (3) further reduced the ROM in L4-5 compared to monosegmental instrumentation to 25% (lateral bending), 28% (flexion/extension) and 57% (axial rotation). Bisegmental surgical decompression (4) caused an increase in ROM in both segments (L3-4 and L4-5) to approximately 125% and approximately 135% and 187-234% in lateral bending, flexion/extension and axial rotation, respectively. Compared to the intact state, bisegmental dynamic instrumentation after surgical decompression reduced the ROM of the two-bridged segments to 29-35% in lateral bending and 33-38% in flexion/extension. In axial rotation, the ROM was in the range of the intact specimen (87-117%). A rigid instrumentation (6) further reduced the ROM of the two-bridged segments to 20-30, 23-27 and 50-68% in lateral bending, flexion/extension and axial rotation, respectively. The results of the present study showed that compared to the intact specimen the investigated hinged dynamic stabilisation device reduced the ROM after bisegmental decompression in lateral bending and flexion/extension. Following bisegmental decompression and the thereby caused large rotational instability the device is capable of restoring the motion in axial rotation back to values in the range of the intact motion segments.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Test setup of six degree of freedom spine tester showing an intact specimen and the three dimensional motion analysis system fixed to the specimen
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
CosmicMIA dynamic posterior stabilisation system, showing the hinge joint in the screw/rod connection. The possible motion of the one degree of freedom joint is shown by the shaded screws
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Range of motion and neutral zone in flexion/extension for the segments L4–5 and L3–4 normalised to the intact state
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Range of motion and neutral zone in axial rotation for the segment L4–5 normalised to the intact state

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Adams MA, Hutton WC. The relevance of torsion to the mechanical derangement of the lumbar spine. Spine. 1981;6:241–248. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198105000-00006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bothmann M, Kast E, Boldt GJ, Oberle J. Dynesys fixation for lumbar spine degeneration. Neurosurg Rev. 2008;31:189–196. doi: 10.1007/s10143-007-0101-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cheng BC, Gordon J, Cheng J, Welch WC. Immediate biomechanical effects of lumbar posterior dynamic stabilization above a circumferential fusion. Spine. 2007;32:2551–2557. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318158cdbe. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cripton PA, Jain GM, Wittenberg RH, Nolte LP. Load-sharing characteristics of stabilized lumbar spine segments. Spine. 2000;25:170–179. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200001150-00006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Disch AC, Schaser KD, Melcher I, Luzzati A, Feraboli F, Schmoelz W. En bloc spondylectomy reconstructions in a biomechanical in-vitro study. Eur Spine J. 2008;17:715–725. doi: 10.1007/s00586-008-0588-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources