title: The Comprehensive Biomechanics and Load-Sharing of Semirigid PEEK and Semirigid Posterior Dynamic Stabilization Systems.
abstract: Alternatives to conventional rigid fusion have been proposed for several conditions related to degenerative disc disease when nonoperative treatment has failed. Semirigid fixation, in the form of dynamic stabilization or PEEK rods, is expected to provide compression under loading as well as an intermediate level of stabilization. This study systematically examines both the load-sharing characteristics and kinematics of these two devices compared to the standard of internal rigid fixators. Load-sharing was studied by using digital pressure films inserted between an artificially machined disc and two loading fixtures. Rigid rods, PEEK rods, and the dynamic stabilization system were inserted posteriorly for stabilization. The kinematics were quantified on ten, human, cadaver lumbosacral spines (L3-S1) which were tested under a pure bending moment, in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. The magnitude of load transmission through the anterior column was significantly greater with the dynamic device compared to PEEK rods and rigid rods. The contact pressures were distributed more uniformly, throughout the disc with the dynamic stabilization devices, and had smaller maximum point-loading (pressures) on any particular point within the disc. Kinematically, the motion was reduced by both semirigid devices similarly in all directions, with slight rigidity imparted by a lateral interbody device.
authors: Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH 03756, USA.
authors: D K
authors: DK
authors: Sengupta
authors: Brandon
authors: B
authors: Bucklen
authors: Paul C
authors: PC
authors: McAfee
authors: Jeff
authors: J
authors: Nichols
authors: Raghavendra
authors: R
authors: Angara
authors: Saif
authors: S
authors: Khalil
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Jan 15;25(2):170-9
references: 10685480
references: Eur Spine J. 2006 Aug;15(8):1276-85
references: 16429291
references: J Biomed Mater Res A. 2009 Aug;90(2):387-95
references: 18523952
references: J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003 Aug;16(4):418-23
references: 12902959
references: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2007 Mar;22(3):257-65
references: 17196720
references: Biomed Mater. 2008 Dec;3(4):044101
references: 19029615
references: J Cell Biochem. 2009 Feb 1;106(2):306-16
references: 19125415
references: Neurol India. 2005 Dec;53(4):466-74
references: 16565539
references: Eur Spine J. 2002 Oct;11 Suppl 2:S198-205
references: 12384745
references: Eur Spine J. 1997;6(1):2-18
references: 9093822
references: Eur Spine J. 2007 Aug;16(8):1223-31
references: 17206401