Finite element study of matched paired posterior disc implant and dynamic stabilizer (360° motion preservation system)

Biomechanical and clinical studies on lumbar spine fusion surgery: a review

Low back pain is associated with degenerative disc diseases of the spine. Surgical treatment includes fusion and non-fusion types. The gold standard is fusion surgery, wherein the affected vertebral segment is fused. The common complication of fusion surgery is adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). The ASD often leads to revision surgery, calling for a further fusion of adjacent segments. The existing designs of nonfusion type implants are associated with clinical problems such as subsidence, difficulty in implantation, and the requirement of revision surgeries. Various surgical approaches have been adopted by the surgeons to insert the spinal implants into the affected segment. Over the years, extensive biomechanical investigations have been reported on various surgical approaches and prostheses to predict the outcomes of lumbar spine implantations. Computer models have been proven to be very effective in identifying the best prosthesis and surgical procedure. The objective of the study was to review the literature on biomechanical studies for the treatment of lumbar spinal degenerative diseases. A critical review of the clinical and biomechanical studies on fusion spine surgeries was undertaken. The important modeling parameters, challenges, and limitations of the current studies were identified, showing the future research directions.

Biomechanics of disc degeneration

Disc degeneration and associated disorders are among the most debated topics in the orthopedic literature over the past few decades. These may be attributed to interrelated mechanical, biochemical, and environmental factors. The treatment options vary from conservative approaches to surgery, depending on the severity of degeneration and response to conservative therapies. Spinal fusion is considered to be the "gold standard" in surgical methods till date. However, the association of adjacent level degeneration has led to the evolution of motion preservation technologies like spinal arthroplasty and posterior dynamic stabilization systems. These new technologies are aimed to address pain and preserve motion while maintaining a proper load sharing among various spinal elements. This paper provides an elaborative biomechanical review of the technologies aimed to address the disc degeneration and reiterates the point that biomechanical efficacy followed by long-term clinical success will allow these nonfusion technologies as alternatives to fusion, at least in certain patient population.

Biomechanical evaluation of the Total Facet Arthroplasty System® (TFAS®): loading as compared to a rigid posterior instrumentation system

PURPOSE

To gain insight into a new technology, a novel facet arthroplasty device (TFAS) was compared to a rigid posterior fixation system (UCR). The axial and bending loads through the implants and at the bone-implant interfaces were evaluated using an ex vivo biomechanical study and matched finite element analysis. Kinematic behaviour has been reported for TFAS, but implant loads have not. Implant loads are important indicators of an implant's performance and safety. The rigid posterior fixation system is used for comparison due to the extensive information available about these systems.

METHODS

Unconstrained pure moments were applied to 13 L3-S1 cadaveric spine segments. Specimens were tested intact, following decompression, UCR fixation and TFAS implantation at L4-L5. UCR fixation was via standard pedicle screws and TFAS implantation was via PMMA-cemented transpedicular stems. Three-dimensional 10 Nm moments and a 600 N follower load were applied; L4-L5 disc pressures and implant loads were measured using a pressure sensor and strain gauges, respectively. A finite element model was used to calculate TFAS bone-implant interface loads.

RESULTS

UCR experienced greater implant loads in extension (p < 0.004) and lateral bending (p < 0.02). Under flexion, TFAS was subject to greater implant moments (p < 0.04). At the bone-implant interface, flexion resulted in the smallest TFAS (average = 0.20 Nm) but greatest UCR (1.18 Nm) moment and axial rotation resulted in the greatest TFAS (3.10 Nm) and smallest UCR (0.40 Nm) moments. Disc pressures were similar to intact for TFAS but not for UCR (p < 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

These results are most applicable to the immediate post-operative period prior to remodelling of the bone-implant interface since the UCR and TFAS implants are intended for different service lives (UCR--until fusion, TFAS--indefinitely). TFAS reproduced intact-like anterior column load-sharing--as measured by disc pressure. The highest bone-implant moment of 3.1 Nm was measured in TFAS and for the same loading condition the UCR interface moment was considerably lower (0.4 Nm). For other loading conditions, the differences between TFAS and UCR were smaller, with the UCR sometimes having larger values and for others the TFAS was larger. The long-term physiological meaning of these findings is unknown and demonstrates the need for a better understanding of the relationship between spinal arthroplasty devices and the host tissue as development of next generation motion-preserving posterior devices that hope to more accurately replicate the natural functions of the native tissue continues.

[Status quo of facet joint replacement]

This review, regarding facet joint replacement, includes the presentation of six different implant systems from five US firms and one Swiss company. The implant systems are introduced for motion retaining replacement of the lumbar facet joints. Biomechanical and clinical results are included as far as they have been available from an Internet search, publications,oral and poster presentations, and from companies directly. At the beginning anatomical, biomechanical, and clinical data of the natural facet joints are presented. Basic principles of the high morbidity in that topographical region and at the same time for an artificial replacement of the facet joints are derived from the data. An implant classification and the available results of these implants are the basis for this article, which presents the actual situation of the treatment method for motion retaining replacements of facet joints, which have been in general clinical use since 2005. Clinical studies are not yet finalized and there are not enough clinical data; therefore, no binding recommendations for treatment with artificial facet joints are possible.