AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
PDF (3.4 MB)
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Research Article | Open Access

Biomechanical Study between the Rigid and Dynamic Fixation Systems of the Spinal Column Analyzed by the Finite Element Method

Samir Zahaf( )Said Kebdani
Département de génie mécanique, université des sciences et de la technologie d’Oran Mohamed Boudiaf, USTO-MB, BP 1505, EL M’naouer, 31000 Oran Algérie. (Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Science and Technology Mohamed Boudiaf (USTO-MB), El Mnaouar, PO Box 1505, Bir El Djir 31000, Oran, Algeria.)
Show Author Information

Abstract

Orthopedic fixation devices are widely used in treatment of spinal diseases. It is expected that application of dynamic stabilization confers valuable movement possibility besides its main role of load bearing. Comparative investigation between pedicle screw model rigid fixation and (B Dyne, Elaspine, Bioflex, Coflex rivet) models dynamic fixation systems may elucidate the efficacy of each design. The goal of the present study is to evaluate the efficacy of five fixation systems mounted on L4-L5 motion segment. In this numerical study, a 3D precious model of L4, L5 and their intervertebral disc has been employed based on CT images. Five fixation devices have been also implanted internally to the motion segment. Finite element method was used to evaluate stress distribution in the disc and determine the overall displacement of the segment as a measure of movement possibility. The results show that the Coflex rivet implantation can provide stability in all motions and reduce disc annulus stress at the surgical segment L4-L5. On the other hand, maximum stress in the disc has been observed in dynamic systems but within the safe range. The greater movement of the motion segment has also appeared in dynamic fixations. Existence of the fixation systems reduced the stress on the intervertebral disc which might be exerted in intact cases. Use of the fixation devices can considerably reduce the load on the discs and prepare conditions for healing of the injured ones. Furthermore, dynamic modes of fixation confer possibility of movement to the motion segments in order to facilitate the spinal activities.

References

[1]

E. Arbit, S. Pannullo, Lumbar stenosis: a clinical review. Clin Orthop, 2001, 384: 137-143.

[2]

S.D. Kuslich, G. Danielson, J.D. Dowdle, et al., Four-year follow-up results of lumbar spine arthrodesis using the Bagby and Kuslich lumbar fusion cage. Spine, 2000, 25(20): 2656-2662.

[3]

P.L. Lai, L.H. Chen, C.C. Niu, et al., Relation between laminectomy and development of adjacent segment instability after lumbar fusion with pedicle fixation. Spine, 2004, 29(22): 2527-2532.

[4]

J.F. Zucherman, KY. Hsu, C.A. Hartjen, et al., A prospective randomized multi-center study for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with the X STOP interspinous implant: 1-year results. Eur Spine J, 2004, 13(1): 22-31.

[5]

B.F. Walker, The prevalence of low back pain: a systematic review of the literature from 1966 to 1998. J Spinal Disord, 2000, 13(3): 205-217.

[6]

A. Mazloum, H. Nozad, and M. Kumashiro, Occupational low back pain among workers in some small-sized factories in Ardabil, Iran. Ind Health, 2006, 44(1): 135-139.

[7]

W.S. Marras, S.A. Lavender, S.E. Leurgans, et al., Biomechanical risk factors for occupationally related low back disorders. Ergonomics, 1995, 38(2): 377-410.

[8]

G.K. Jeong, J.A. Bendo, Spinal disorders in the elderly. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2004, 425: 110-125.

[9]

W. S, Marras, Occupational low back disorder causation and control. Ergonomics, 2000, 43(7): 880-902.

[10]

J.A. Hides, M.J. Stokes, M. Saide, et al., Evidence of lumbar multifidus muscle wasting ipsilateral to symptoms in patients with acute/subacute low back pain (Phila Pa 1976). Spine, 1994, 19(2): 165-172.

[11]

M.J.L. Sullivan, W. Stanish, H. Waite, et al., Catastro-phizing, pain, and disability in patients with soft-tissue injuries. Pain, 1998, 77(3): 253-260.

[12]

M.C. Nevitt, B. Ettinger, D.M. Black, et al., The association of radiographically detected vertebral fractures with back pain and function: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med, 1998, 128(10): 793-800.

[13]

J.A. Turner, J.D. Loeser, and K.G. Bell, Spinal cord stimulation for chronic low back pain: a systematic literature synthesis. Neurosurgery, 1995, 37(6): 1088-1095.

[14]

M. Putzier, S.V. Schneider, J. Funk, et al., Application of a dynamic pedicle screw system (DYNESYS) for lumbar segmental degenerations-comparison of clinical and radiological results for different indications. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb, 2004, 142(2): 166-173.

[15]

P.R, Harrington, J.H, Dickson, Spinal Instrumentation in the Treatment of Severe Progressive Spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1976, 117: 157-163.

[16]

F.P. Magerl, Stabilization of the Lower Thoracic and Lumbar Spine with External Skeletal Fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1984, 189: 125-141.

[17]

W. Dick, P. Kluger, F. Magerl, et al., A new device for internal fixation of thoracolumbar and lumbar spine fractures: the 'fixateur interne'. Paraplegia, 1985, 23(4): 225-232.

[18]

R. Roy-Camille, G. Saillant, D. Berteaux, et al., Vertebral osteosynthesis using metal plates. It's different uses (author's transl). Chirurgie, 1979, 105(7): 597-603.

[19]

A.D. Steffee, R.S. Biscup, and D.J. Sitkowskj, Segmental spine plates with pedicle screw fixation. A new internal fixation device for disorders of the lumbar and thoracolumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1986, 203: 45-53.

[20]

J.A. Turner, M. Ersek, L. Herron, et al., Patient outcomes after lumbar spinal fusions. JAMA, 1992, 268(7): 907-911.

[21]

G.R. Buttermann, T.A. Garvey, A.F. Hunt, et al., Lumbar fusion results related to diagnosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1998, 23(1): 116-127.

[22]

K. Thomsen, F.B. Christensen, S.P. Eiskjaer, et al., Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective, randomized clinical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1997, 22(24): 2813-2822.

[23]

Y. Aota, K. Kumano, and S. Hirabayashi, Postfusion instability at the adjacent segments after rigid pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spinal disorders. J Spinal Disord Tech, 1995, 8(6): 464-473.

[24]

M.D, Rahm, B.B, Hall, Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with instrumentation. J Spinal Disord, 1996, 9(5): 392-400.

[25]

J.D. Schlegel, J.A. Smith, and R.L. Schleusener, Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbosacral fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1996, 21(8): 970-981.

[26]

K.P. Schulitz, L. Wiesner, R.H. Wittenberg, et al., The mobile segment above fusion. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb, 1996, 134(2): 171-176.

[27]

T.R. Lehmann, K.F. Spratt, J.E. Tozzi, et al., Long-term follow-up of lower lumbar fusion patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1987, 12(2): 97-104.

[28]

T. Whitecloud, J.M. Davis, and P.M. Olive, Operative treatment of the degenerated segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine, 1994, 19(5): 531-536.

[29]

L. Bastian, U.L.C. Knop, G. Tusch, et al., Evaluation of the mobility of adjacent segments after posterior thoracolumbar fixation: a biomechanical study. Europ Spine J, 2001, 10(4): 295-300.

[30]

O. Schwarzenbach, U. Berlemann, T.M. Stoll, et al., Posterior dynamic stabilization systems: DYNESYS. Orthop Clin North A, 2005, 36(3): 363-372.

[31]

T.M. Stoll, G. Dubois, and O. Schwarzenbach, The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J, 2002, 11(Suppl 2): S170-S178.

[32]

D.S. Shin, K. Lee, and D. Kim, Biomechanical study of lumbar spine with dynamic stabilization device using finite element method. Com-Aid Desig, 2007, 39(7): 559-567.

[33]

B.W. Cunningham, J.M. Dawson, N. Hu, et al., Preclinical evaluation of the Dynesys posterior spinal stabilization system: A nonhuman primate model. Spine J, 2010, 10(9): 775-783.

[34]

Q.H. Zhang, Y.L. Zhou, D. Petit, et al., Evaluation of load transfer characteristics of a dynamic stabilization device on disc loading under compression. Med Eng Phys, 2009, 31(5): 533-538.

[35]

W. Schmoelz, J.F. Huber, T. Nydegger, et al., Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2003, 16(4): 418-423.

[36]
G. Dubois, B. De Germay, N.S. Schaerer. Dynamic neutralization. A new concept for restablization of the spine. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1999.
[37]

B. Cakir, B. Ulmar, and H. Koepp, Posterior dynamic stabilization as an alternative for dorso-ventral fusion in spinal stenosis with degenerative instability. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb, 2002, 141(4): 418-424.

[38]

S.M. Kim, I. Yang, S.Y. Lee, et al., Dynamic simulation of universal spacer in Dynesys dynamic stabilization system for human vertebra. Trans Nonfer Metal Soci China, 2009, 19: s238-s242.

[39]

R.N. Natarajan, G.B.J. Andersson, Modeling the annular incision in a herniated lumbar intervertebral disc to study its effect on disc stability. Comput Struct, 1997, 64: 1291-1297.

[40]

T, Pitzen, F.H, Geisler, D, Matthis, et al., The influence of cancellous bone density on load sharing in human lumbar spine: a comparison between an intact and a surgically altered motion segment. Eur Spine J, 2001, 10: 23-29.

[41]
A. Polikeit, Finite element analysis of the lumbar spine: Clinical application. Inaugural dissertation, University of Bern, 2002.
[42]
G. Denozi´ere, Numerical modeling of a ligamentous lumber motion segment, M.S. thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia, USA, 2004.
[43]

G. Baroud, J. Nemes, P. Heini, et al., Load shift of the intervertebral disc after a vertebroplasty: A finite element study. Eur Spine J, 2003, 12: 421-426.

[44]
S. Gwanseob, Viscoelastic responses of the lumbar spine during prolonged stooping. Ph.D. dissertation, NCSU, USA, 2005.
[45]

K. Sairyo, V.K. Goel, A. Masuda, et al., Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the pediatric lumbar spine. Eur Spine J, 2006, 15: 923-929.

[46]

A. Rohlmann, N.K. Burra, T. Zander, et al., Comparison of the effects of bilateral posterior dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J, 2007, 16: 1223-1231.

[47]

V.K, Goel, B.T, Monroe, L.G, Gilbertson, et al., Interlaminar shear stresses and laminae separation in a disc. Finite element analysis of the L3-L4 motion segment subjected to axial compressive loads. Spine, 1995, 20: 689-698.

[48]

T. Smit, A. Odgaard, and E. Schneider. Structure and function of vertebral trabecular bone. Spine, 1997, 22: 2823-2833.

[49]

M. Sharma, N.A. Langrana, and J. Rodriguez, Role of ligaments and facets in lumbar spinal stability. Spine, 1995, 20: 887-900.

[50]

K.K, Lee, E.C, Teo, Effects of laminectomy and facetectomy on the stability of the lumbar motion segment. Med Eng Phys, 2004, 26: 183-192.

[51]

A. Rohlmann, T. Zander, H. Schmidt, et al., Analysis of the influence of disc degeneration on the mechanical behaviour of a lumbar motion segment using the finite element method. J Biomech, 2006, 39: 2484-2490.

[52]

A. Shirazi-Adl, A.M. Ahmed, and S.C. Shrivastava, Mechanical response of a lumbar motion segment in axial torque alone and combined with compression. Spine, 1986, 11: 914-927.

[53]
A.A. White 3rd, M.M. Panjabi, Clinical biomechanics of the spine, 2nd edition. J.B. Lippincott Company, 1990.
[54]

K.K. Lee, E.C. Teo, F.K. Fuss, et al., Finite element analysis for lumbar interbody fusion under axial loading. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 2004, 51: 393-400.

[55]

A. Polikeit, SJ. Ferguson, LP. Nolte, TE. Orr, Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis. Eur Spine J, 2003, 12: 413-420.

[56]

C.S. Chen, C.K. Cheng, C.L. Liu, et al., Stress analysis of the disc adjacent fusion in lumbar spine. Med Eng Phys, 2001, 23: 483-491.

[57]

S.H. Chen, Z.C. Zhong, C.S. Chen, et al., Biomechanical comparison between lumbar disc arthroplasty and fusion. Med Eng Phys, 2009, 31(2): 244-253.

[58]

Z.C. Zhong, S.H. Chen, and C.H. Hung, Load- and displacementcontrolled finite element analyses on fusion and non-fusion spinal implants. Proc Inst Mech Eng H, 2009, 223(2): 143-157.

[59]

R. Eberlein, G.A. Holzapfel, and C.A.J. Schulze-Bauer, An anisotropic constitutive model for annulus tissue, and enhanced finite element analysis of intact lumbar disc bodies. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin, 2001, 4(3): 209-230.

[60]

P. Vena, G. Franzoso, D. Gastaldi, et al., A finite element model of the L4-L5 spinal motion segment: biomechanical compatibility of an interspinous device. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin, 2005, 8(1): 7-16.

[61]

H. Schmidt, F. Heuer, U. Simon, et al., Application of a new calibration method for a 3D finite element model of a human lumbar annulus fibrosus. Clin Biomech, 2006, 21(4): 337-344.

Nano Biomedicine and Engineering
Pages 169-183
Cite this article:
Zahaf S, Kebdani S. Biomechanical Study between the Rigid and Dynamic Fixation Systems of the Spinal Column Analyzed by the Finite Element Method. Nano Biomedicine and Engineering, 2017, 9(2): 169-183. https://doi.org/10.5101/nbe.v9i2.p169-183

558

Views

13

Downloads

6

Crossref

8

Scopus

Altmetrics

Received: 31 May 2017
Accepted: 27 June 2017
Published: 30 June 2017
© 2017 Samir Zahaf, Said Kebdani.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Return