Comparison of the biomechanical effects of posterior and anterior spine-stabilizing implants.
Posteriorly and anteriorly fixed implants for stabilizing unstable spines are available on the market. Differences in the biomechanical behavior of these implant types are not yet fully clear. They were investigated using three-dimensional nonlinear finite element models of the lumbar spine in an intact state, with an anteriorly fixed MACS-TL implant and with posteriorly fixed internal fixators. The bisegmental implants spanned the L3 vertebra, and bone grafts were used with both implant types to replace parts of the two bridged discs. The computer models were loaded with partial body weight and muscle forces simulating standing, flexion, extension and axial rotation. Both implant types have reduced intersegmental rotation for flexion, extension, and axial rotation in the bridged region. The reduction is more pronounced for the MACS-TL implant. The implant type has only a minor effect on intradiscal pressure. Maximum von Mises stresses in the vertebrae are lower for flexion and extension with the MACS-TL implant than with the internal fixator. Very high stresses are predicted for flexion after insertion of internal fixators. For standing and torsion, maximum stresses differ only negligibly between the two implant types. In the period immediately after surgery, patients with osteoporotic vertebrae and who are treated with an internal spinal fixation device should therefore avoid excessive flexion. This study adds new information about the mechanical behavior of the lumbar spine after insertion of posterior and anterior spine-stabilizing implants. This information improves our biomechanical understanding of the spine.
Rohlmann
Antonius
A
Biomechanics Laboratory, Charité -Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin, Germany. rohlmann@biomechanik.de
Zander
T
T
Bergmann
G
G
D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D004867:Equipment Design; D020342:Finite Element Analysis; D006801:Humans; D008159:Lumbar Vertebrae / Q000503:physiopathology* / Q000601:surgery*; D008161:Lumbosacral Region; D008954:Models, Biological; D017711:Nonlinear Dynamics; D009984:Orthopedic Fixation Devices / Q000145:classification; D011184:Postoperative Period; D012399:Rotation; D013131:Spine / Q000503:physiopathology*; D013314:Stress, Mechanical
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2001;16 Suppl 1:S111-26
11275349
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992 Aug;17(8):897-913
1523493
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Dec 15;26(24):E557-61
11740371
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Apr 15;24(8):755-62
10222525
Orthopade. 2002 Apr;31(4):413-22
12056285
J Biomech. 2002 Apr;35(4):491-7
11934418
Orthopade. 2002 Apr;31(4):406-12
12056284
Orthopade. 2002 Apr;31(4):362, 363-7
12056276
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2002 Jul;17(6):439-45
12135545
J Biomech Eng. 1995 Aug;117(3):266-71
8618378
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1986 Nov;11(9):914-27
3824069
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2001;16 Suppl 1:S73-80
11275345
Eur Spine J. 2001 Aug;10(4):301-8
11563615
J Biomech. 1999 Jul;32(7):727-31
10400361
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 May 15;24(10):1003-9
10332793
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Mar 15;20(6):689-98
7604345
Ergonomics. 2001 Jun 20;44(8):781-94
11450876