Loads on a spinal implant measured in vivo during whole-body vibration

The application of impantable sensors in the musculoskeletal system: a review

As the population ages and the incidence of traumatic events rises, there is a growing trend toward the implantation of devices to replace damaged or degenerated tissues in the body. In orthopedic applications, some implants are equipped with sensors to measure internal data and monitor the status of the implant. In recent years, several multi-functional implants have been developed that the clinician can externally control using a smart device. Experts anticipate that these versatile implants could pave the way for the next-generation of technological advancements. This paper provides an introduction to implantable sensors and is structured into three parts. The first section categorizes existing implantable sensors based on their working principles and provides detailed illustrations with examples. The second section introduces the most common materials used in implantable sensors, divided into rigid and flexible materials according to their properties. The third section is the focal point of this article, with implantable orthopedic sensors being classified as joint, spine, or fracture, based on different practical scenarios. The aim of this review is to introduce various implantable orthopedic sensors, compare their different characteristics, and outline the future direction of their development and application.

Prediction of the biomechanical behaviour of the lumbar spine under multi-axis whole-body vibration using a whole-body finite element model

Low back pain has been reported to have a high prevalence among occupational drivers. Whole-body vibration during the driving environment has been found to be a possible factor leading to low back pain. Vibration loads might lead to degeneration and herniation of the intervertebral disc, which would increase incidence of low back problems among drivers. Some previous studies have reported the effects of whole-body vibration on the human body, but studies on the internal dynamic responses of the lumbar spine under multi-axis vibration are limited. In this study, the internal biomechanical response of the intervertebral disc was extracted to investigate the biomechanical behaviour of the lumbar spine under a multi-axial vibration in a whole-body environment. A whole-body finite element model, including skin, soft tissues, the bone skeleton, internal organs and a detailed ligamentous lumbar spine, was used to provide a whole-body condition for analyses. The results showed that both vibrations close to vertical and fore-and-aft resonance frequencies would increase the transmission of vibrations in the intervertebral disc, and vertical vibration might have a greater effect on the lumbar spine than fore-and-aft vibration. The larger deformation of the posterior region of the intervertebral disc in a multi-axis vibration environment might contribute to the higher susceptibility of the posterior region of the intervertebral disc to injury. The findings of this study revealed the dynamic behaviours of the lumbar spine in multi-axis vehicle vibration conditions, and suggested that both vertical and fore-and-aft vibration should be considered for protecting the lumbar health of occupational drivers.

Does Lumbar Interbody Fusion Modality Affect the Occurrence of Complications in an Osteoporotic Spine Under Whole-Body Vibration? A Finite Element Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of 3 lumbar interbody fusion techniques on the occurrence of complications in an osteoporotic spine under whole-body vibration.

METHODS

A previously developed and validated nonlinear finite element model of L1-S1was modified to develop anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) models with osteoporosis. In each model, the lower surface of the sacrum was absolutely fixed, a follower load of 400N was applied through the axis of the lumbar spine, and an axial sinusoidal vertical load of ±40N (5 Hz) was imposed on the superior surface of L1, to perform a transient dynamic analysis. The maximal values of intradiscal pressure, shear stress on annulus substance, disc bulge, facet joint stress, and screw and rod stress, along with their dynamic response curves, were collected.

RESULTS

Among these 3 models, the TLIF model generated the greatest screw and rod stress, and the PLIF model generated the greatest cage-bone interface stress. At the L3-L4 level, compared with the other 2 models, the maximal values and dynamic response curves of intradiscal pressure, shear stress of annulus ground substance, and disc bulge were all lower in the ALIF model. However, the facet contact stress at the adjacent segment in the ALIF model was higher than that in the other 2 models.

CONCLUSIONS

In an osteoporotic spine under whole-body vibration, TLIF has the highest risk of screw and rod breakage, PLIF has the highest risk of cage subsidence, and ALIF has the lowest risk of upper adjacent disc degeneration, but the highest risk of adjacent facet joint degeneration.

Comparison of In Vivo Intradiscal Pressure between Sitting and Standing in Human Lumbar Spine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is highly prevalent today. Disc degeneration could be one of the causes of non-specific LBP, and increased intradiscal pressure (IDP) can potentially induce disc degeneration. The differences in vivo IDP in sitting and standing postures have been studied, but inconsistent results have been reported. The primary objective of this systematic review is to compare the differences in vivo IDP between sitting and standing postures. The secondary objective of this review is to compare effect size estimates between (1) dated and more recent studies and (2) healthy and degenerated intervertebral discs.

METHODS

An exhaustive search of six electronic databases for studies published before November 2021 was conducted. Articles measuring in vivo IDP in sitting and standing postures were included. Two independent researchers conducted the screening and data extraction.

RESULTS

Ten studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in the systematic review, and seven studies with nine independent groups were included in meta-analyses. The sitting posture induces a significantly higher IDP on the lumbar spine (SMD: 0.87; 95% CI = [0.33, 1.41]) than the standing posture. In studies published after 1990 and subjects with degenerated discs, there are no differences in vivo IDP between both postures.

CONCLUSIONS

Sitting causes higher loads on the lumbar spine than standing in the normal discs, but recent studies do not support this conclusion. Furthermore, the degenerated discs showed no difference in IDP in both postures.

'SMART' implantable devices for spinal implants: a systematic review on current and future trends

Background

'SMART' implants refer to modified orthopedic implants that combine the biomechanical safety and efficacy of traditional devices with the intelligence of data-logging sensors. This review aims to systematically assess the available literature on SMART spinal implants and present these findings in a clinically relevant manner.

Methods

A search of PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases was conducted by two separate reviewers. Information including sensor type, intended application, and sample size, was extracted from included studies. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) risk of bias tool.

Results

Eighteen studies were included for analysis. Eight studies involved SMART rods and ten studies used SMART vertebral body replacements (VBR). No more than 20 patients are reported to have received a SMART spinal implant. Including non-primary evidence, seven unique designs for SMART spinal implants were found. The majority of these used strain gauges with recent designs including thermometers and accelerometers.

Discussion

At present, SMART spinal implants have primarily focused on utilising strain gauges to report loading on the implant itself. This is a logical first step as it allows quantification of real-world requirements of an implant, detection of catastrophic failure, while also allowing researchers and clinicians to estimate changes in load sharing between newly forming bone and the implant itself, providing real-time information on the progression of healing and fusion. Future work includes documenting the correlation between data provided by these SMART implants and clinical findings, including complications such as pedicle screw loosening and interbody cage subsidence.

Biomechanical Investigation of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Supplemented with Topping-off Instrumentation Using Different Dynamic Stabilization Devices

STUDY DESIGN

A biomechanical comparison study using finite element method.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate effects of different dynamic stabilization devices, including pedicle-based dynamic stabilization system (PBDSS) and interspinous process spacer (ISP), used for topping-off implants on biomechanical responses of human spine after lumbar interbody fusion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Topping-off stabilization technique has been proposed to prevent adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. PBDSS and ISP are the most used dynamic stabilizers for topping-off instrumentation. However, biomechanical differences between them still remain unclear.

METHODS

A validated, normal FE model of human lumbosacral spine was employed. Based on this model, rigid fusion at L4-L5 and moderately disc degeneration at L3-L4 were simulated and used as a comparison baseline. Subsequently, Bioflex and DIAM systems were instrumented at L3-L4 segment to construct PBDSS-based and ISP-based topping-off models. Biomechanical responses of the models to bending moments and vertical vibrational excitation were computed using FE static and random response analyses, respectively.

RESULTS

Results from static analysis showed that at L3-L4, the response parameters including annulus stress and range of motion were decreased by 41.6% to 85.2% for PBDSS-based model and by 6.3% to 67% for ISP-based model compared with rigid fusion model. At L2-L3, these parameters were lower in ISP-based model than in PBDSS-based model. Results from random response analysis showed that topping-off instrumentation increased resonant frequency of spine system but decreased dynamic response of annulus stress at L3-L4. PBDSS-based model generated lower dynamic stress than ISP-based model at L3-L4, but the dynamic stress was higher at L2-L3 for PBDSSbased model.

CONCLUSION

Under static and vibration loadings, the PBDSSbased topping-off device (Bioflex) provided a better protection for transition segment, and likelihood of degeneration of supraadjacent segment might be relatively lower when using the ISPbased topping-off device (DIAM).Level of Evidence: 5.

[Biomechanical study of different approach for lumbar interbody fusion surgeries under vibration load]

The human spine injury and various lumbar spine diseases caused by vibration have attracted extensive attention at home and abroad. To explore the biomechanical characteristics of different approaches for lumbar interbody fusion surgery combined with an interspinous internal fixator, device for intervertebral assisted motion (DIAM), finite element models of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are created by simulating clinical operation based on a three-dimensional finite element model of normal human whole lumbar spine. The fusion level is at L4-L5, and the DIAM is implanted between spinous process of L4 and L5. Transient dynamic analysis is conducted on the ALIF, TLIF and LLIF models, respectively, to compute and compare their stress responses to an axial cyclic load. The results show that compared with those in ALIF and TILF models, contact forces between endplate and cage are higher in LLIF model, where the von-Mises stress in endplate and DIAM is lower. This implies that the LLIF have a better biomechanical performance under vibration. After bony fusion between vertebrae, the endplate and DIAM stresses for all the three surgical models are decreased. It is expected that this study can provide references for selection of surgical approaches in the fusion surgery and vibration protection for the postsurgical lumbar spine.

Biomechanical investigation of topping-off technique using an interspinous process device following lumbar interbody fusion under vibration loading

Topping-off technique has been proposed to prevent adjacent-segment degeneration/disease following spine fusion surgery. Nevertheless, few studies have investigated biomechanics of the fusion surgery with topping-off device under whole-body vibration (WBV). This biomechanical study aimed to investigate the vibration characteristics of human lumbar spine after topping-off surgery, and also to evaluate the effect of bony fusion on spine biomechanics. Based on a healthy finite-element model of lumbosacral spine (L1-sacrum), the models of topping-off surgery before and after bony fusion were developed. The simulated surgical procedures consisted of interbody fusion with rigid stabilizer at L4-L5 segment (rigid fusion) and dynamic stabilizer at degenerated L3-L4 segment. An interspinous implant, Device for Intervertebral Assisted Motion (DIAM, Medtronic Inc., Minnesota, USA), was used as the dynamic stabilizer. The stress responses of spine segments and implants under a vertical cyclic load were calculated and analyzed. The results showed that compared with rigid fusion alone, the topping-off technique significantly decreased disc stress at transition segment (L3-L4) as expected, and resulted in a slight increase in disc stress at its supra-adjacent segment (L2-L3). It indicated that the topping-off stabilization using DIAM might provide a good tradeoff between protection of transition segment and deterioration of its supra-adjacent segment during WBV. Also, it was found that bony fusion decreased stress in L4 inferior endplate and rigid stabilizer but had nearly no effect on stress in DIAM and L3-L4 disc, which was helpful to determine the biomechanical differences before and after bony fusion.

Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Finite Element Analysis of the Vibration Characteristics of Fused Lumbar Spine

OBJECTIVE

Previous studies have investigated biomechanical characteristics of the lumbar spine after different types of lumbar interbody fusion surgery under static loadings. However, very few have dealt with the whole-body vibration (WBV) condition that is typically present in vehicles. The aim of this study was to compare the influence of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) on dynamic responses of the fused lumbar spine to vertical WBV.

METHODS

The PLIF and TLIF procedures with bilateral pedicle screw fixation at L4-L5 level were simulated by modifying a previously validated intact lumbar L1-S1 finite element model. The PLIF and TLIF models were subjected to a sinusoidal vertical load with a compressive follower preload, and computed for transient dynamic analysis. The obtained dynamic responses for the models at the fused and adjacent levels were collected and compared.

RESULTS

The results showed that the contact force between endplate and cage was higher in the PLIF model than in the TLIF model, indicating that PLIF allowed for higher compressive load across the anterior structure. At fused L4-L5 level, the TLIF led to a higher stress in the endplate and posterior BPSF system than the PLIF. At adjacent L3-L4 level and L5-S1 level, the computed dynamic responses, in terms of stress and deformation, for the PLIF and TLIF models showed very few differences.

CONCLUSIONS

This study may be helpful to quantify dynamic mechanical properties of the fused lumbar spine, and better understand biomechanical differences between the PLIF and TLIF procedures during vibration.

The effect of non-fusion dynamic stabilization on biomechanical responses of the implanted lumbar spine during whole-body vibration

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Non-fusion dynamic stabilization surgery is increasingly popular for treating degenerative lumbar disc disease. However, changes in spine biomechanics after application of posterior dynamic fixation devices during whole-body vibration (WBV) remain unclear. The study aimed to examine the effects of non-fusion dynamic stabilization on biomechanical responses of the implanted lumbar spine to vertical WBV.

METHODS

By modifying L4-L5 segment of the healthy human L1-sacrum finite element model, single-level disc degeneration, dynamic fixation using the BioFlex system and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with rigid fixation were simulated, respectively. Dynamic responses of stress and strain in the spinal levels for the healthy, degenerated, BioFlex and ALIF models under an axial cyclic loading were investigated and compared.

RESULTS

The results showed that endplate stress at implant level was lower in the BioFlex model than in the degenerated and ALIF models, but stress of the connecting rod in the BioFlex system was greater than that in the rigid fixation system used in the ALIF. Compared with the healthy model, stress and strain responses in terms of disc bulge, annulus stress and nucleus pressure at adjacent levels were decreased in the degenerated, BioFlex and ALIF models, but no obvious difference was observed in these responses among the three models.

CONCLUSIONS

This study may be helpful to understand variations in vibration characteristics of the lumbar spine after application of non-fusion dynamic stabilization system.

Comparison of effects of four interbody fusion approaches on the fused and adjacent segments under vibration

BACKGROUND

Which lumbar fusion approaches having fewer impacts on the lumbar spine, reducing the risk of complications and the most conducive to bone fusion under whole-body vibration is urgent to know.

OBJECTIVES

This study researched the best approach under vibration by comparing the effects of four different approaches on the spine, especially regarding some significant indexes related to complications and outcomes.

METHODS

The L1-L5 finite element model was modified to simulate anterior, posterior, trans-foraminal and direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion approaches with bilateral pedicle screw fixation at L4-L5 level.

FINDINGS

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion decreased the corresponding vibration amplitude of the dynamic response at adjacent segments compared with the other three approaches. Direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion decreased the maximum stress in the cage, the endplates at the fused level, and the maximum compressive stress at the interface between the cage and endplates. The maximum disc height and segmental lordosis of Direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion model were the highest among these fusion approaches.

INTERPRETATION

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion may provide a more stable environment for the adjacent segments under vibration. Direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion may reduce the risk of subsidence, cage failure, and adjacent segment disease. Direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion may provide a more stable and suitable environment for vertebral cell growth and lead to better fusion outcomes. The findings may help us understand the effect of various fusion approaches on lumbar and provide some references for choosing a fusion approach.

Loading of the hip and knee joints during whole body vibration training

During whole body vibrations, the total contact force in knee and hip joints consists of a static component plus the vibration-induced dynamic component. In two different cohorts, these forces were measured with instrumented joint implants at different vibration frequencies and amplitudes. For three standing positions on two platforms, the dynamic forces were compared to the static forces, and the total forces were related to the peak forces during walking. A biomechanical model served for estimating muscle force increases from contact force increases. The median static forces were 122% to 168% (knee), resp. 93% to 141% (hip), of the body weight. The same accelerations produced higher dynamic forces for alternating than for parallel foot movements. The dynamic forces individually differed much between 5.3% to 27.5% of the static forces in the same positions. On the Powerplate, they were even close to zero in some subjects. The total forces were always below 79% of the forces during walking. The dynamic forces did not rise proportionally to platform accelerations. During stance (Galileo, 25 Hz, 2 mm), the damping of dynamic forces was only 8% between foot and knee but 54% between knee and hip. The estimated rises in muscle forces due to the vibrations were in the same ranges as the contact force increases. These rises were much smaller than the vibration-induced EMG increases, reported for the same platform accelerations. These small muscle force increases, along with the observation that the peak contact and muscle forces during vibrations remained far below those during walking, indicate that dynamic muscle force amplitudes cannot be the reason for positive effects of whole body vibrations on muscles, bone remodelling or arthritic joints. Positive effects of vibrations must be caused by factors other than raised forces amplitudes.

Spinal loads during post-operative physiotherapeutic exercises

After spinal surgery, physiotherapeutic exercises are performed to achieve a rapid return to normal life. One important aim of treatment is to regain muscle strength, but it is known that muscle forces increase the spinal loads to potentially hazardous levels. It has not yet been clarified which exercises cause high spinal forces and thus endanger the surgical outcome. The loads on vertebral body replacements were measured in 5 patients during eleven physiotherapeutic exercises, performed in the supine, prone, or lateral position or on all fours (kneeling on the hands and knees). Low resultant forces on the vertebral body replacement were measured for the following exercises: lifting one straight leg in the supine position, abduction of the leg in the lateral position, outstretching one leg in the all-fours position, and hollowing the back in the all-fours position. From the biomechanical point of view, these exercises can be performed shortly after surgery. Implant forces similar or even greater than those for walking were measured during: lifting both legs, lifting the pelvis in the supine position, outstretching one arm with or without simultaneously outstretching the contralateral leg in the all-fours position, and arching the back in the all-fours position. These exercises should not be performed shortly after spine surgery.

Activities of everyday life with high spinal loads

Activities with high spinal loads should be avoided by patients with back problems. Awareness about these activities and knowledge of the associated loads are important for the proper design and pre-clinical testing of spinal implants. The loads on an instrumented vertebral body replacement have been telemetrically measured for approximately 1000 combinations of activities and parameters in 5 patients over a period up to 65 months postoperatively. A database containing, among others, extreme values for load components in more than 13,500 datasets was searched for 10 activities that cause the highest resultant force, bending moment, torsional moment, or shear force in an anatomical direction. The following activities caused high resultant forces: lifting a weight from the ground, forward elevation of straight arms with a weight in hands, moving a weight laterally in front of the body with hanging arms, changing the body position, staircase walking, tying shoes, and upper body flexion. All activities have in common that the center of mass of the upper body was moved anteriorly. Forces up to 1650 N were measured for these activities of daily life. However, there was a large intra- and inter-individual variation in the implant loads for the various activities depending on how exercises were performed. Measured shear forces were usually higher in the posterior direction than in the anterior direction. Activities with high resultant forces usually caused high values of other load components.

Spinal loads during cycling on an ergometer

Cycling on an ergometer is an effective exercise for improving fitness. However, people with back problems or previous spinal surgery are often not aware of whether cycling could be harmful for them. To date, little information exists about spinal loads during cycling. A telemeterized vertebral body replacement allows in vivo measurement of implant loads during the activities of daily living. Five patients with a severe compression fracture of a lumbar vertebral body received these implants. During one measurement session, four of the participants exercised on a bicycle ergometer at various power levels. As the power level increased, the maximum resultant force and the difference between the maximum and minimum force (force range) during each pedal revolution increased. The average maximum-force increases between the two power levels 25 and 85 W were 73, 84, 225 and 75 N for the four patients. The corresponding increases in the force range during a pedal revolution were 84, 98, 166 and 101 N. There were large variations in the measured forces between the patients and also within the same patient, especially for high power levels. In two patients, the maximum forces during high-power cycling were higher than the forces during walking measured on the same day. Therefore, the authors conclude that patients with back problems should not cycle at high power levels shortly after surgery as a precaution.

How does the way a weight is carried affect spinal loads?

People often have to carry a weight which increases the spinal load. Few in vivo measured spinal loading data exist for carrying a weight. The aim of this study was to measure the force increase on a vertebral body replacement (VBR) caused by carrying weights in different ways. A telemeterised VBR allowing the measurement of six load components was implanted in five patients suffering from lumbar vertebral body fractures. The patients carried different weights laterally in one or both hands, in front of the body and in a backpack. The force increase with respect to standing was more than twice as high for carrying a weight in front of the body compared with carrying it laterally. A weight of 10 kg in a backpack led to an average force increase of only 35 N. The position of the carried weight relative to the spine strongly affected the spinal load.

PRACTITIONER SUMMARY

Carrying weights increases spinal loads. The loads on a telemeterised VBR were measured in five patients carrying weights in different ways. Holding a weight in front of the body strongly increased the force, while carrying it in a backpack led to only a minor load increase.

Loads on a vertebral body replacement during locomotion measured in vivo

Walking is one of the most important activities in daily life, and walking exposes the spine to a high number of loading cycles. Little is known about the spinal loads during walking. Telemeterized spinal implants can provide data about their loading during different activities. The aim of this study was to measure the loads on a vertebral body replacement (VBR) during level and staircase walking and to determine the effects of walking speed and using walking aids. Telemeterized VBRs were implanted in five patients suffering from compression fractures of the L1 or L3 lumbar vertebral body. The implant allows measurements of three force and three moment components. The resultant force on the VBR was measured during level and staircase walking, when walking on a treadmill at different speeds, and when using a wheeled invalid walker or crutches. On average, the resultant force on the VBR for level walking was 171% of the value for standing. This force value increased to 265% of the standing force when ascending stairs and to 225% when descending stairs. Walking speed had a strong effect on the implant force. Using a walker during ambulation on level ground reduced the force on the implant to 62% of standing forces, whereas using two crutches had only a minor effect. Walking causes much higher forces on the VBR than standing. A strong force reduction can be achieved by using a walker.

In vivo measurements of the effect of whole body vibration on spinal loads

PURPOSE

It is assumed that whole body vibration (WBV) improves muscle strength, bone density, blood flow and mobility and is therefore used in wide ranges such as to improve fitness and prevent osteoporosis and back pain. It is expected that WBV produces large forces on the spine, which poses a potential risk factor for the health of the spine. Therefore, the aim of the study was to measure the effect of various vibration frequencies, amplitudes, device types and body positions on the loads acting on a lumbar vertebral body replacement (VBR).

METHODS

Three patients suffering from a fractured lumbar vertebral body were treated using a telemeterized VBR. The implant loads were measured during WBV while the patients stood on devices with vertically and seesaw-induced vibration. Frequencies between 5 and 50 Hz and amplitudes of 1, 2 and 4 mm were tested. The patients stood with their knees straight, slightly bent, or bent at 60°. In addition, they stood on their forefeet.

RESULTS

The peak resultant forces on the implant increased due to vibration by an average of 24% relative to the forces induced without vibration. The average increase of the peak implant force was 27% for vertically induced vibration and 15% for seesaw vibration. The forces were higher when the legs were straight than when the knees were bent. Both the vibration frequency and the amplitude had only a minor effect on the measured forces.

CONCLUSIONS

The force increase due to WBV is caused by an activation of the trunk muscles and by the acceleration forces. The forces produced during WBV are usually lower than those produced during walking. Therefore, the absolute magnitude of the forces produced during WBV should not be harmful, even for people with osteoporosis.

Monitoring the load on a telemeterised vertebral body replacement for a period of up to 65 months

PURPOSE

To determine the postoperative temporal course of the forces acting on a vertebral body replacement (VBR) for two well reproducible activities.

METHODS

A telemeterised VBR was implanted in five patients. It allows the measurement of six load components. Implant loads were measured in up to 28 measuring sessions for different activities, including standing and walking.

RESULTS

The postoperative temporal course of the resultant implant forces measured during standing and walking was similar in each patient, but the patterns varied strongly from patient to patient. In one patient, the forces decreased in the first year and then increased in the following 4 years. In another patient, the forces increased in the first few months and then decreased. In a third patient, the forces varied only slightly in the postoperative time. In two patients, there was a strong drop of the implant force in the first two postoperative months. The force was on average approximately 100 N or 71% higher for walking than for standing.

CONCLUSIONS

The strong force reduction in the first 2 months is most likely caused by implant subsidence, and the force reduction over a period of more than 6 months is most likely caused by fusion of the vertebrae adjacent to the VBR. The short-term force increase could be attributed to bone atrophy at the index level, and the long-term force increase could be attributed to an increase in the thoracic spine kyphosis angle.

Effect of an orthosis on the loads acting on a vertebral body replacement

BACKGROUND

The spinal load reduction by an orthosis is still a matter of debate. Some studies predicted a load reduction while others found no effect. The aim of this study was to measure the in vivo effect of the Lumbo TriStep brace and the hyperextension orthosis medi 3C on the spinal implant loads.

METHODS

Telemeterized vertebral body replacements were implanted in 5 patients suffering from a severe fracture of the L1 or L3 vertebral body. The implant allows the measurement of 6 load components acting on it. For several activities during standing, sitting and walking, implant loads were measured in patients with and without an orthosis.

FINDINGS

The average resultant force on the vertebral body for 26 activities was reduced by 9% with the Lumbo TriStep brace, and by 19% with the hyperextension orthosis. The force reduction is usually more pronounced for activities performed during sitting than it is for those performed while standing. However, considerable inter- and intra-individual variation was observed. In several cases, the measured implant forces were even higher when the patients were wearing an orthosis.

INTERPRETATION

In some patients, for certain activities, an orthosis may reduce the force on a vertebral body replacement and thus on the anterior column of the spine. However, in other patients for the same activities, an orthosis may increase the force. The measurements do not allow a clear recommendation to wear an orthosis since the clinically relevant reduction of implant forces is unknown.

Lifting up and laying down a weight causes high spinal loads

Lifting up weights from a cupboard or table and putting them back are activities of daily living. Patients with spinal problems want to know whether they should avoid these activities. However, little is known about the spinal forces during these activities and about the effect of level height. Loads on a telemeterized vertebral body replacement were measured in 5 patients. The effect of level height when lifting or setting down weights of 0.01, 1.5 and 3.0 kg in a standing posture were investigated. Furthermore, these weights were lifted and set down with a stretched arm while sitting at a table. No instructions were given on how to perform the task. For these activities, forces as high as 5 times the value for standing alone were measured. In 2 patients, implant loads decreased with increasing level height. In the other patients the effect of level height was small. Lifting a weight from a table with a stretched arm while sitting led to a strong increase of the maximum implant force. Setting down the weight usually caused a slightly higher maximum implant force than lifting it. Forces on a vertebral body replacement during lifting and setting down a weight varied strongly when no precise instructions were given on how to perform the activity. Thus, the measured forces are representative for such activities performed in daily life. This, however, led to wide variations in measured data. Compared to the value for standing, 5 times higher forces were measured for lifting and setting down of weights. This suggests that these activities should be avoided by patients who have spinal problems.