TY - JOUR
T1 - Rigid and flexible spinal stabilization devices
T2 - A biomechanical comparison
AU - Galbusera, Fabio
AU - Bellini, Chiara Maria
AU - Anasetti, Federica
AU - Ciavarro, Cristina
AU - Lovi, Alessio
AU - Brayda-Bruno, Marco
PY - 2011/5
Y1 - 2011/5
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Dynamic stabilization
KW - Finite element
KW - Flexible
KW - Low back pain
KW - Semirigid
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79953330310&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79953330310&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.medengphy.2010.11.018
DO - 10.1016/j.medengphy.2010.11.018
M3 - Article
C2 - 21177135
AN - SCOPUS:79953330310
SN - 1350-4533
VL - 33
SP - 490
EP - 496
JO - Medical Engineering and Physics
JF - Medical Engineering and Physics
IS - 4
ER -