Hybrid stabilization is widely performed for the surgical treatment of degenerative disk diseases. Pedicle-based hybrid stabilization intends to reduce fusion-associated drawbacks of adjacent segment degeneration, construct failure, and pseudoarthrosis. Recently, many types of pedicle-based hybrid stabilization systems have been developed and optimized, using polymeric devices as an adjunct for lumbar fusion procedures. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of new pedicle-based hybrid stabilization on bending stiffness and center of rotation at operated and adjacent levels in comparison with established semirigid and rigid devices in lumbar fusion procedures. A validated three-dimensional finite element model of the L3–S1 segments was modified to simulate postoperative changes during combined loading (moment of 7.5 N m + follower load of 400 N). Two models instrumented with pedicle-based hybrid stabilization (Dynesys Transition Optima, NFlex), semirigid system (polyetheretherketone), and rigid fixation system (titanium rod (Ti) were compared with those of the healthy and degenerated models. Contact force on the facet joint during extension increased in fusion (40 N) with an increase of bending stiffness in Dynesys and NFlex. The center of rotation shifted in posterior and cranial directions of the fused level. The centers of rotation in the lower lumbar spine is segment dependent and altered with the adopted construct. The bending stiffness was varied from 1.47 N m/° in lateral bending for the healthy model to 5.75 N m/° for the NFlex stabilization, which had the closest center of rotation, compared to the healthy center of rotation. Locations of center of rotation, stress, and strain distribution varied according to construct design and materials used. These data could help understand the biomechanical effects of current pedicle-based hybrid stabilization on the behavior of the lower lumbar spine.
AhnYHChenWMLeeKY, et al. Comparison of the load-sharing characteristics between pedicle-based dynamic and rigid rod devices. Biomed Mater2008; 3(4): 044101.
2.
AthanasakopoulosMMavrogenisAFTriantafyllopoulosG, et al. Posterior spinal fusion using pedicle screws. Orthopedics2013; 36(7): 951–957.
3.
PanjabiMMOxlandTTakataK, et al. Articular facets of the human spine quantitative three-dimensional anatomy. Spine1993; 18(10): 1298–1310.
4.
PanjabiMMKragMHDimnetJC, et al. Thoracic spine centers of rotation in the sagittal plane. J Orthop Res1984; 1(4): 387–394.
5.
SchmidtHHeuerFClaesL, et al. The relation between the instantaneous center of rotation and facet joint forces—a finite element analysis. Clin Biomech2008; 23(3): 270–278.
6.
GertzbeinSDHoltbyRTileM, et al. Determination of a locus of instantaneous centers of rotation of the lumbar disc by moiré fringes. A New Technique Spine1984; 9(4): 409–413.
7.
RousseauMABradfordDSHadiTM, et al. The instant axis of rotation influences facet forces at L5/S1 during flexion/extension and lateral bending. Eur Spine J2006; 15(3): 299–307.
8.
SchmidtHHeuerFSimonU, et al. Application of a new calibration method for a three-dimensional finite element model of a human lumbar annulus fibrosus. Clin Biomech2006; 21(4): 337–344.
9.
BifulcoPCesarelliMCercielloT, et al. A continuous description of intervertebral motion by means of spline interpolation of kinematic data extracted by videofluoroscopy. J Biomech2012; 45(4): 634–641.
10.
DimnetJFischerLPGononG, et al. Radiographic studies of lateral flexion in the lumbar spine. J Biomech1978; 11(3): 143–150.
11.
HaherTRO’BrienMFelmlyWT, et al. Instantaneous axis of rotation as a function of the three columns of the spine. Spine1992; 17(Suppl6): S149–S154.
12.
PearcyMJBogdukN.Instantaneous axes of rotation of the lumbar intervertebral joints. Spine1988; 13(9): 1033–1041.
13.
ParkWMWangSKimYH, et al. Effect of the intra-abdominal pressure and the center of segmental body mass on the lumbar spine mechanics—a computational parametric study. J Biomech Eng2012; 134(1): 011009.
14.
KimHLimDHOhHJ, et al. Effects of nonlinearity in the materials used for the semi-rigid pedicle screw systems on biomechanical behaviors of the lumbar spine after surgery. Biomed Mater2011; 6(5): 055005.
15.
WangSXiaQPassiasP, et al. Measurement of geometric deformation of lumbar intervertebral discs under in-vivo weightbearing condition. J Biomech2009; 42(6): 705–711.
16.
WuMWangSDriscollSJ, et al. Dynamic motion characteristics of the lower lumbar spine: implication to lumbar pathology and surgical treatment. Eur Spine J2014; 23(11): 2350–2358.
17.
XiaQWangSKozanekM, et al. In-vivo motion characteristics of lumbar vertebrae in sagittal and transverse planes. J Biomech2010; 43(10): 1905–1909.
18.
OdaTFujiTKatoY, et al. Deep venous thrombosis after posterior spinal surgery. Spine2000; 25(22): 2962–2967.
19.
MosbahMBendoukhaM.Comparative analysis of flexible stabilization devices based on polymeric and composite materials for degenerative disorders: finite element analysis. Építőanyag—J Silic Base Compos Mater2018; 70(5): 146–150.
20.
SukSIKimWJLeeSM, et al. Thoracic pedicle screw fixation in spinal deformities. Spine2001; 26(18): 2049–2057.
21.
DahlMCEllingsonAMMehtaHP, et al. The biomechanics of a multilevel lumbar spine hybrid using nucleus replacement in conjunction with fusion. Spine J2013; 13(2): 175–183.
22.
St-PierreGHJackASiddiquiMM, et al. Nonfusion does not prevent adjacent segment disease. Spine2016; 41(3): 265–273.
23.
LeeSEParkSBJahngTA, et al. Clinical experience of the dynamic stabilization system for the degenerative spine disease. J Korea Neurosurg Soc2008; 43(5): 221–226.
24.
LeeSEJahngTAKimHJ.Hybrid surgery combined with dynamic stabilization system and fusion for the multilevel degenerative disease of the lumbosacral spine. Int J Spine Surg2015; 9: 45.
25.
SchlegelJBayleyJYuanH, et al. Timing of surgical decompression and fixation of acute spinal fractures. J Orthop Trauma1996; 10(5): 323–330.
26.
CunninghamBW.Basic scientific considerations in total disc arthroplasty. Spine J2004; 4(Suppl6): S219–S230.
27.
FritzellPHäggOWessbergP, et al. Volvo Award winner in clinical studies: lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain. Spine2001; 26(23): 2521–2532.
28.
HilibrandASRobbinsM.Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion?Spine J2004; 4(Suppl6): S190–S194.
29.
KumarMBaklanovAChopinD.Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J2001; 10(4): 314–319.
30.
FormicaMCavagnaroLBassoM, et al. Is it possible to preserve lumbar lordosis after hybrid stabilization? Preliminary results of a novel rigid-dynamic stabilization system in degenerative lumbar pathologies. Eur Spine J2015; 24(Suppl7): S849–S854.
31.
KashkoushAAgarwalNPaschelE, et al. Evaluation of a hybrid dynamic stabilization and fusion system in the lumbar spine: a 10 year experience. Cureus2016; 8(6): e637.
32.
MaseratiMBTormentiMJPanczykowskiDM, et al. The use of a hybrid dynamic stabilization and fusion system in the lumbar spine: preliminary experience. Neurosurg Focus2010; 28(6): E2.
33.
OktenogluTErbulutDUKiapourA, et al. Pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilisation of the lumbar spine: in vitro cadaver investigation and a finite element study. Comput Method Biomech Biomed Eng2015; 18(11): 1252–1261.
34.
BonoCMKadabaMVaccaroAR.Posterior pedicle fixation-based dynamic stabilization devices for the treatment of degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord Tech2009; 22(5): 376–383.
35.
SenguptaDK.Dynamic stabilization devices in the treatment of low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am2004; 35(1): 43–56.
36.
NiosiCAZhuQAWilsonDC, et al. Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system: an in vitro study. Eur Spine J2006; 15(6): 913–922.
37.
ParkHZhangHYChoBY, et al. Change of lumbar motion after multi-level posterior dynamic stabilization with bioflex system: 1 year follow-up. J Korea Neurosurg Soc2009; 46: 285–291.
38.
SchmoelzWHuberJFNydeggerT, et al. Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments. Spine2003; 16(4): 418–423.
39.
ZhangHYParkJYChoBY.The bioflex system as a dynamic stabilization device: does it preserve lumbar motion. J Korea Neurosurg Soc2009; 46(5): 431–436.
40.
JahngTAKimYEMoonKY.Comparison of the biomechanical effect of pedicle-based dynamic stabilization: a study using finite element analysis. Spine J2013; 13(1): 85–94.
41.
ShinDSLeeKKimD.Biomechanical study of lumbar spine with dynamic stabilization device using finite element method. Computer Aided Design2007; 39: 559–567.
42.
ZhongZCWeiSHWangJP, et al. Finite element analysis of the lumbar spine with a new cage using a topology optimization method. Med Eng Phys2006; 28(1): 90–98.
43.
MesbahMBarkaouiAChialiH.Finite element analysis of a patient-specific model of the lumbar spine behaviour. Series Biomech2019; 33(3): 27–39.
44.
RohlmannAZanderTSchmidtH, et al. Analysis of the influence of disc degeneration on the mechanical behaviour of a lumbar motion segment using the finite element method. J Biomech2006; 39(13): 2484–2490.
45.
GoelVKMonroeBTGilbertsonLG, et al. Interlaminar shear stresses and laminae separation in a disc. Finite element analysis of the L3-L4 motion segment subjected to axial compressive loads. Spine1995; 20(6): 689–698.
46.
SharmaMLangranaNARodriguezJ.Role of ligaments and facets in lumbar spinal stability. Spine1995; 20: 887–900.
47.
GoelVKMehtaAJangraJ, et al. Anatomic facet replacement system (AFRS) restoration of lumbar segment mechanics to healthy: a finite element study and in vitro cadaver investigation. SAS J2007; 1(1): 46–54.
48.
SenguptaDKWebbJKMulhollandRC. Can soft stabilization in the lumbar spine unload the disc and retain mobility? A biomechanical study with fulcrum assisted soft stabilization on cadaver spine. In: ISSLS annual meeting, Edinburgh, 19–22 June 2001, p.129.
49.
LittleJP.Finite element modelling of annular lesions in the lumbar intervertebral disc. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 2004.
50.
DenozièreGKuDN.Biomechanical comparison between fusion of two vertebrae and implantation of an artificial intervertebral disc. J Biomech2006; 39(4): 766–775.
51.
MoumeneMGeislerFH.Comparison of biomechanical function at ideal and varied surgical placement for two lumbar artificial disc implant designs: mobile-core versus fixed-core. Spine2007; 32(17): 1840–1851.
52.
TsuangYHChiangYFHungCY, et al. Comparison of cage application modality in posterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior instrumentation—a finite element study. Med Eng Phys2009; 31(5): 565–570.
53.
OuCYLeeTCLeeTH, et al. Impact of body mass index on adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion for degenerative spine disease. Neurosurg2015; 76(4): 396–401.
54.
ReuleauxF.The kinematics of machinery: outline of a theory of machines. London: Macmillan, 1876, p.61.
55.
WilkeHWengerKClaesL, et al. Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J1998; 7: 148–154.
56.
PatwardhanAGHaveyRMMeadeKP, et al. A follower load increases the load-carrying capacity of the lumbar spine in compression. Spine1999; 24(10): 1003–1009.
57.
Shirazi-AdlAAhmedAMShrivastavaSC.Mechanical response of a lumbar motion segment in axial torque alone and combined with compression. Spine1986; 11(9): 914–927.
58.
SearsWRSergidesIGKazemiN, et al. Incidence and prevalence of surgery at segments adjacent to a previous posterior lumbar arthrodesis. Spine J2011; 11(1): 11–20.
59.
Prud’hommeMBarriosCRouchP, et al. Clinical outcomes and complications after pedicle-anchored dynamic or hybrid lumbar spine stabilization. J Spinal Disord Tech2015; 28(8): E439–E448.
