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

A Biomechanical Comparison of 2 Different Topping-off Devices and Their Influence on the Sacroiliac Joint Following Lumbosacral Fusion Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Interspinous spacer (ISS)-based and pedicle screw-rod dynamic fixator (PDF)-based topping-off devices have been applied in lumbar/lumbosacral fusion surgeries for preventing the development of proximal adjacent segment degeneration. However, little attention has been paid to sacroiliac joint (SIJ), which belongs to the adjacent joints. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to compare how these 2 topping-off devices affect the SIJ biomechanics.

METHODS

A validated, normal finite-element lumbopelvic model (L3-pelvis) was initially adjusted to simulate interbody fusion with rigid fixation at the L5-S1 level, and then the DIAM or BioFlex system was instrumented at the L4-5 level to establish the ISS-based or PDF-based topping-off model, respectively. All the developed models were loaded with moments of 4 physiological motions using hybrid loading protocol.

RESULTS

Compared with the rigid fusion model (without topping-off devices), range of motion and von-Mises stress at the SIJs were increased by 23.1%-64.1% and 23.6%-62.8%, respectively, for the ISS-based model and by 51.2%-126.7% and 50.4%-108.7%, respectively, for the PDF-based model.

CONCLUSION

The obtained results suggest that the PDF-based topping-off device leads to higher increments in SIJ motion and stress than ISS-based topping-off device following lumbosacral fusion, implying topping-off technique could be linked to an increased risk of SIJ degeneration, especially when using PDF-based device.

Correlation between surgical segment mobility and paravertebral muscle fatty infiltration of upper adjacent segment in single-segment LDD patients: retrospective study at a minimum 2 years' follow-up

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between surgical segment mobility and fatty infiltration of the adjacent segment paravertebral muscles in patients with single-segment lumbar degenerative disease (LDD) who underwent decompression with fusion or dynamic stabilization.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent lumbar decompression combined with titanium rod fixation intertransverse fusion (PITF group), Isobar TTL dynamic stabilization (TTL group) or Isobar EVO dynamic stabilization (EVO group) for single-segment lumbar degenerative disease, from March 2012 to July 2018. The preoperative and final follow-up clinical indexes C-LDSI and the measured imaging indexes (range of motion of the surgical segment and the upper adjacent segment, and Goutallier grade of the upper adjacent segment) were counted, and the differences between the preoperative and final follow-up indexes were compared.

RESULTS

According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 68 patients were included in this study, 21 in the PITF group, 24 in the TTL group, and 23 in the EVO group. At the final follow-up, the C-LSDI score had significantly higher in the PITF group than the TTL and EVO groups, and the C-LSDI score was a very strongly negatively correlated with ROM of surgical segment (r=-0.7968, p < 0.001). There was a strong negative correlation between surgical segment and upper adjacent segment mobility (r = -0.6959, p < 0.001). And there was a very strong negative correlation between ROM of surgical segment and upper adjacent segment paravertebral muscle Goutallier classification (r = -0.8092, p < 0.001), whereas the ROM of the upper adjacent segment was strong positive correlated with the Goutallier classification (r = 0.6703, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Compared with decompression combined with rigid fusion, decompression combined with dynamic fixation for single-segment lumbar degenerative disease can significantly reduce postoperative low back stiffness. And a certain range of increased mobility of the dynamic stabilization device can effectively reduce the compensatory mobility of the upper adjacent segment and slow down the fatty infiltration of the paravertebral muscle in the adjacent segment.

Comparison between single-segment Isobar EVO dynamic stabilization and Isobar TTL dynamic stabilization in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a single center retrospective study over 4 years

Objective

Posterior instrumented fusion is the most widely accepted surgical treatment for spinal stenosis and disc herniation. However, fusion can affect daily activities due to lumbar stiffness. In recent years, dynamic stabilization has been introduced to overcome the drawbacks of fusion, however, it is inconclusive whether dynamic stabilization requires the maintenance of a level of activity that is closer to the physiological state of activity for better clinical efficacy. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of dynamic stabilization with different levels of activity (Isobar EVO and TTL) in the treatment of spinal stenosis and disc herniation.

Methods

This study retrospectively reviewed 80 consecutive patients with lumbar degenerative diseases who were undergoing surgical treatment between March 2014 and July 2018. 41 patients (EVO group) and 39 patients (TTL group) underwent fenestrated decompression with Isobar EVO stabilization and Isobar TTL stabilization, respectively. Clinical outcomes, radiographic data, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.

Results

At an average follow-up of 52.23 ± 2.97 months, there were no significant differences in the oswestry disability index (ODI) (P > 0.05). The visual analog scale for back pain (VAS_back) and visual analog scale for the leg pain (VAS_leg) of the EVO group were lower compared with the TTL group (P < 0.05). The range of motion (ROM) of operated segments were significantly higher in the EVO group as compared to the TTL group (P < 0.05). The intervertebral space height (ISH) of upper adjacent segments were significantly higher in the EVO group as compared to the TTL group (P < 0.05). The overall complications were less in the EVO group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Both Isobar EVO dynamic stabilization and TTL dynamic stabilization can improve clinical outcomes of patients with spinal stenosis and disc herniation. Isobar EVO has advantages over Isobar TTL in terms of improving low back and leg pain, maintaining mobility of the operated segment, and preventing further degeneration of the upper adjacent segment.

Biomechanical analysis of lumbar nonfusion dynamic stabilization using a pedicle screw-based dynamic stabilizer or an interspinous process spacer

This study aimed to investigate and compare the effects of two widely used nonfusion posterior dynamic stabilization (NPDS) devices, pedicle screw-based dynamic stabilizer (PSDS) and interspinous process spacer (IPS), on biomechanics of the implanted lumbar spine under static and vibration loadings. The finite element model of healthy human lumbosacral segment was modified to incorporate NPDS device insertion at L4-L5 segment. Bioflex and DIAM were used as PSDS-based and IPS-based NPDS devices, respectively. As a comparison, lumbar interbody fusion with rigid stabilization was also simulated at L4-L5. For static loading, segmental range of motion (ROM) of the models under moments of four physiological motions was computed using hybrid testing protocol. For vibration loading, resonant modes and dynamic stress of the models under vertical excitation were extracted through random response analysis. The results showed that compared with the rigid fusion model, ROM of the nonfusion models was higher at L4-L5 level but lower at adjacent levels (L1- L2, L2-L3, L3-L4, L5-S1). Compared with the Bioflex model, the DIAM model produced higher ROM at L4-L5 level but lower ROM at adjacent levels, especially under lateral bending and axial rotation; resonant frequency of the DIAM model was slightly lower; dynamic response of nucleus stress at L4-L5 level was slightly higher for the DIAM model, and the dynamic stress at adjacent levels was no obvious difference between the nonfusion models. This study reveals biomechanical differences between the Bioflex and DIAM systems, which may provide references for selecting surgical approaches in clinical practice.

Adjacent segments biomechanics following lumbar fusion surgery: a musculoskeletal finite element model study

PURPOSE

This study exploits a novel musculoskeletal finite element (MS-FE) spine model to evaluate the post-fusion (L4-L5) alterations in adjacent segment kinetics.

METHODS

Unlike the existing MS models with idealized representation of spinal joints, this model predicts stress/strain distributions in all passive tissues while organically coupled to a MS model. This generic (in terms of musculature and material properties) model uses population-based in vivo vertebral sagittal rotations, gravity loads, and an optimization algorithm to calculate muscle forces. Simulations represent individuals with an intact L4-L5, a preoperative severely degenerated L4-L5 (by reducing the disc height by ~ 60% and removing the nucleus incompressibility), and a postoperative fused L4-L5 segment with either a fixed or an altered lumbopelvic rhythm with respect to the intact condition (based on clinical observations). Changes in spine kinematics and back muscle cross-sectional areas (due to intraoperative injuries) are considered based on in vivo data while simulating three activities in upright/flexed postures.

RESULTS

Postoperative changes in some adjacent segment kinetics were found considerable (i.e., larger than 25%) that depended on the postoperative lumbopelvic kinematics and preoperative L4-L5 disc condition. Postoperative alterations in adjacent disc shear, facet/ligament forces, and annulus stresses/strains were greater (> 25%) than those found in intradiscal pressure and compression (< 25%). Kinetics of the lower (L5-S1) and upper (L3-L4) adjacent segments were altered to different degrees.

CONCLUSION

Alterations in segmental rotations mainly affected adjacent disc shear forces, facet/ligament forces, and annulus/collagen fibers stresses/strains. An altered lumbopelvic rhythm (increased pelvis rotation) tends to mitigate some of these surgically induced changes.