Highlights
- •The hybrid fixation can protect the transition segment and suppress junctional problems.
- •The cable pretension of the screw-spacer system has a minor effect on the construct behavior.
- •The screw-spacer system transmits higher loads onto the transition disc.
- •The rod-rod system comparatively constrains the transition segment.
- •The rod-rod system induces higher compensations to the adjacent segments.
Abstract
Background
Hybrid fixators with quite different joint design concepts have been widely to suppress
adjacent segment degeneration problems. The kinematic and kinetic responses of the
adjacent and transition segments and contact behaviors at the bone-screw interfaces
served as the objective of this study.
Methods
The moderately degenerated L4/L5 and mildly degenerative L3/L4 segments were respectively
immobilized by a static fixator and further bridged by the rod-rod (Isobar) and screw-spacer
(Dynesys) fixator.. The joint stiffness and mobility of the rod-rod system and the
cable pretension of the screw-spacer system were systematically varied.
Findings
The flexion of the screw-spacer system provided higher mobility to the transition
segment, reducing adjacent-segment problems. The cable pretension had a minor effect
on the construct behavior. However, due to limited joint mobility, the rod-rod system
showed higher constraints to the transition segment and induced more adjacent-segment
compensations. The increased mobility of the rod-rod joint caused it to behave as
a more dynamic fixator that increased adjacent-segment compensations at the transition
segment. Comparatively, increasing the joint mobility showed more significant effects
on the construct behaviors than decreasing the joint stiffness. Furthermore, increased
constraint by the rod-rod joint induced higher stress and risk of loosening at the
bone-screw interfaces
Interpretation
If the protection of the transition segment is the major concern, the rod-rod system
can be used to constrain the intervertebral motion and share the higher loads through
the fixator. Otherwise, the screw-spacer system is recommended in situations where
higher loads onto the transition disc are allowable.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Clinical BiomechanicsAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Does hybrid fixation prevent junctional disease after posteriorfusion for degenerative lumbar disorders? A minimum 5-yearfollow-up study.Eur. Spine J. November 2015; 24: 855-864
- Pedicle-screw-based dynamic systems and degenerative lumbar diseases: biomechanical and clinical experiences of dynamic fusion with isobar TTL.ISRN Orthop. 2013; 183702
- Pedicle screw-based dynamic stabilization devices in the lumbar spine: biomechanical concepts, technologies, classification, and clinical results.Adv. Conc. Lumbar Deg. Disk Dis. 2016; : 633-664https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47756-4_43
- Correlation of radiographic and MRI parameters to morphological and biochemical assessment of intervertebral disc degeneration.Eur. Spine J. 2005; 14: 27-35
- Posterior pedicle fixation-based dynamic stabilization devices for the treatment of degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine.J. Spinal Disord. Tech. 2009; 22: 376-383
- Dynesys fixation for lumbar spine degeneration.Neurosurg. Rev. 2008; 31: 189-196
- Biomechanical comparison between isobar and dynamic-transitional optima (DTO) hybrid lumbar fixators: a lumbosacral finite element and intersegmental motion analysis.Biomed. Res. Int. 2022; 8: 8273853
- Pretension effects of the dynesys cord on the tissue responses and screw-spacer behaviors of the lumbosacral construct with hybrid fixation.Spine. 2013; 38: E775-E782
- Kinematic and mechanical comparisons of lumbar hybrid fixation using Dynesys and cosmic systems.Spine. 2014; 39: E878-E884
- Comparison among load-, ROM-, and displacement-controlled methods used in the lumbosacral nonlinear finite-element analysis.Spine. 2013; 38: E276-E285
- Dynamic stabilization for degenerative lumbar scoliosis in elderly patients.Spine. 2010; 35: 227-234
- Clinical experience with the dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine: surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years.Spine. 2005; 30: 324-331
- Non-fusion procedure using PEEK rod systems for lumbar degenerative diseases: clinical experience with a 2-year follow-up.BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2016; 17 (Feb 1): 53https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-0913-2
- Evaluation of a hybrid dynamic stabilization and fusion system in the lumbar spine: a 10 year experience.Cureus. 2016; 8e637
- Two-year follow-up results of the isobar TTL semi-rigid rod system for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease.J. Clin. Neurosci. 2013; 20: 394-399
- Traditional and cortical trajectory screws of static and dynamic lumbar fixation- a finite element study.BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2020; 21 (14): 463
- Adjacent level disease following lumbar spine surgery: a review.Surg. Neurol. Int. 2015; 6: S591-S599
- Complications associated with the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system: a comprehensive review of the literature.Neurosurg. Focus. 2016; 40 (E2)
- The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system.Eur. Spine J. 2002; 11: S170-S178
- Pedicle screw-based dynamic stabilization with a hinged screw head system in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disorders.Korean J Spine. 2011; 8: 102-105
- The BioFlex system as a dynamic stabilization device : does it preserve lumbar motion?.J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2009; 46: 431-446
- Long-term outcome of Dynesys dynamic stabilization for lumbar spinal stenosis.Chin. Med. J. 2018; 131: 2537-2543
Article info
Publication history
Accepted:
March 7,
2023
Received:
September 9,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Journal Pre-ProofIdentification
Copyright
© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
