Antonius Rohlmann

Comparison of the effects of bilateral posterior dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis

A bilateral dynamic stabilization device is assumed to alter favorable the movement and load transmission of a spinal segment without the intention of fusion of that segment. Little is known about the effect of a posterior dynamic fixation device on the mechanical behavior of the lumbar spine. Muscle forces were disregarded in the few biomechanical studies published. The aim of this study was to determine how the spinal loads are affected by a bilateral posterior dynamic implant compared to a rigid fixator which does not claim to maintain mobility. A paired monosegmental posterior dynamic implant was inserted at level L3/L4 in a validated finite element model of the lumbar spine. Both a healthy and a slightly degenerated disc were assumed at implant level. Distraction of the bridged segment was also simulated. For comparison, a monosegmental rigid fixation device as well as the effect of implant stiffness on intersegmental rotation were studied. The model was loaded with the upper body weight and muscle forces to simulate the four loading cases standing, 30° flexion, 20° extension, and 10° axial rotation. Intersegmental rotations, intradiscal pressure and facet joint forces were calculated at implant level and at the adjacent level above the implant. Implant forces were also determined. Compared to an intact spine, a dynamic implant reduces intersegmental rotation at implant level, decreases intradiscal pressure in a healthy disc for extension and standing, and decreases facet joint forces at implant level. With a rigid implant, these effects are more pronounced. With a slightly degenerated disc intersegmental rotation at implant level is mildly increased for extension and axial rotation and intradiscal pressure is strongly reduced for extension. After distraction, intradiscal pressure values are markedly reduced only for the rigid implant. At the adjacent level L2/L3, a posterior implant has only a minor effect on intradiscal pressure. However, it increases facet joint forces at this level for axial rotation and extension. Posterior implants are mostly loaded in compression. Forces in the implant are generally higher in a rigid fixator than in a dynamic implant. Distraction strongly increases both axial and shear forces in the implant. A stiffness of the implant greater than 1,000xa0N/mm has only a minor effect on intersegmental rotation. The mechanical effects of a dynamic implant are similar to those of a rigid fixation device, except after distraction, when intradiscal pressure is considerably lower for rigid than for dynamic implants. Thus, the results of this study demonstrate that a dynamic implant does not necessarily reduce axial spinal loads compared to an un-instrumented spine.

Effect of Total Disc Replacement with Prodisc on Intersegmental Rotation of the Lumbar Spine

Study Design. The mechanical behavior of the lumbar spine after insertion of a ProDisc prosthesis was studied using 3-dimensional nonlinear finite element models. Objective. To determine how the mechanical behavior of the lumbar spine is affected by the implant position and height, as well as by removing different portions of the natural disc and resuturing the anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL). Summary of Background Data. Little is known about how the affected and adjacent levels of the spine are influenced by the implant height and position or by the surgical procedure. Methods. The artificial disc ProDisc was integrated in a validated 3-dimensional, nonlinear, finite element model of the lumbar spine. The model was loaded with the upper body weight and muscle forces to simulate standing, 30° flexion, 15° extension, and 6° axial rotation. The disc position was varied by up to 2 mm in both an anterior and posterior direction. Three different disc heights were investigated, as well as the influence of removing different portions of the natural disc and resuturing the ALL. Results. Implant position strongly influences intersegmental rotation for the loading cases of standing and flexion. A disc height 2 mm in excess of the normal disc space increases intersegmental rotation at implant level during standing and extension. The values for intersegmental rotation are closer to those for the intact spine when lateral portions of the anulus are not removed. Resuturing the ALL has a strong effect on the loading cases of extension and standing. Conclusions. When implanting an artificial disc, great care should be taken in choosing the optimal height and correct position for the implant. Lateral portions of the anulus should be preserved whenever possible. A perfect reconstruction of the ALL would help to restore the biomechanics to normal.

Spinal loads after osteoporotic vertebral fractures treated by vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty

Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty are routine treatments for compression fractures of vertebral bodies. A wedge-shaped compression fracture shifts the centre of gravity of the upper body anteriorly and generally, this shift can be compensated in the spine and in the hips. However, it is still unclear how a wedge-shaped compression fracture of a vertebra increases forces in the trunk muscle and the intradiscal pressure in the adjacent discs. A nonlinear finite element model of the lumbar spine was used to estimate the force in the trunk muscle, the intradiscal pressure and the stresses in the endplates in the intact spine, and after vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty treatment. In this study, kyphoplasty represents a treatment with nearly full fracture reduction and vertebroplasty one without restoration of kyphotic angle although in reality kyphoplasty does not guarantee fracture reduction. If no compensation of upper body shift is assumed, the force in the erector spine increases by about 200% for the vertebroplasty but by only 55% for the kyphoplasty compared to the intact spine. Intradiscal pressure increases by about 60 and 20% for the vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, respectively. In contrast, with shift compensation of the upper body, the increase in muscle force is much lower and increase in intradiscal pressure is only about 20 and 7.5% for the vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, respectively. Augmentation of the vertebral body with bone cement has a much smaller effect on intradiscal pressure. The increase in that case is only about 2.4% for the intact as well as for the fractured vertebra. Moreover, the effect of upper body shift after a wedge-shaped vertebral body fracture on intradiscal pressure and thus on spinal load is much more pronounced than that of stiffness increase due to cement infiltration. Maximum von Mises stress in the endplates of all lumbar vertebrae is also higher after kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty. Cement augmentation has only a minor effect on endplate stresses in the unfractured vertebrae. The advantages of kyphoplasty found in this study will be apparent only if nearly full fracture reduction is achieved. Otherwise, differences between kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty become small or vanish. Our results suggest that vertebral body fractures in the adjacent vertebrae after vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty are not induced by the elevated stiffness of the treated vertebra, but instead the anterior shift of the upper body is the dominating factor.

Influence of graded facetectomy and laminectomy on spinal biomechanics

Facetectomy and laminectomy are techniques for decompressing lumbosacral spinal stenosis. Resections of posterior bony or ligamentous parts normally lead to a decrease in stability. The degree of instability depends on the extent of resection, the loading situation and the condition of the intervertebral discs. The correlation between these parameters is not well understood. In order to investigate how these parameters relate to one another, a three-dimensional, non-linear finite element model of the lumbosacral spine was created. Intersegmental rotations, intradiscal pressures, stresses, strains and forces in the facet joints were calculated while simulating an intact spine as well as different extents of resection (left and bilateral hemifacetectomy, hemilaminectomy and bilateral laminectomy, two-level laminectomy), disc conditions (intact and degenerated) and loading situations (pure moment loads, standing and forward bending). The results of the modelling showed that a unilateral hemifacetectomy increases intersegmental rotation for the loading situation of axial rotation. Expanding the resection to bilateral hemifacetectomy increases intersegmental rotation even more, while further resection up to a bilateral laminectomy has only a minor additional effect. Hemilaminectomy and laminectomy only differ in their effect for ventriflexion and muscle-supported forward bending. Two-level laminectomy increases the intersegmental rotation only for standing. Degenerated discs result in smaller intersegmental rotations and higher disc stresses at the respective levels. Decompression procedures affect the examined biomechanical parameters less markedly in degenerated than in intact discs. Resection of posterior bony or ligamentous elements has a stronger influence on the amount than on the distribution of stresses and deformations in a disc. It has only a minor effect on the biomechanical behaviour of the adjacent region. Spinal stability is decreased after a laminectomy for forward bending, and after a two-level laminectomy for standing. For axial rotation, spinal stability is decreased even after a hemifacetectomy. Patients should therefore avoid excessive axial rotation after such a treatment.

Influence of different artificial disc kinematics on spine biomechanics.

BACKGROUNDnThere are several different artificial discs for the lumbar spine in clinical use. Though clinically established, little is known about the biomechanical advantages of different disc kinematics.nnnMETHODSnA validated finite element model of the lumbosacral spine was used to compare the results of total disc arthroplasty at level L4/L5 performed by simulating the kinematics of three established artificial disc prostheses (Charité, ProDisc, Activ L). For flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial torsion, the intervertebral rotations, the locations of the helical axes of rotation, the intradiscal pressures, and the facet joint forces were evaluated at the operated and adjacent levels.nnnFINDINGSnAfter insertion of an artificial disc, intervertebral rotation is reduced for flexion and increased for extension, lateral bending, and axial torsion for all studied discs at implant level. The positions of the helical axes are altered especially for lateral bending and axial torsion. Increased facet joint contact forces are predicted for the Charité disc during extension-- influenced by the existence of anterior scar tissue--and for the ProDisc and the Activ L during lateral bending and axial torsion. The studied artificial discs have only a minor effect on the adjacent levels.nnnINTERPRETATIONSnFor some load cases, total disc arthroplasty leads to considerably altered kinematics and increased facet joint contact forces at implant level. The spinal kinematic alterations due to an artificial disc exceed by far the inter-implant differences, while facet joint contact force alterations are strongly implant and load case dependent. The importance of implant kinematics is often overestimated.

Effect of multilevel lumbar disc arthroplasty on spine kinematics and facet joint loads in flexion and extension: a finite element analysis

Total disc arthroplasty (TDA) has been successfully used for monosegmental treatment in the last few years. However, multi-level TDA led to controversial clinical results. We hypothesise that: (1) the more artificial discs are implanted, the stronger the increases in spinal mobility and facet joint forces in flexion and extension; (2) deviations from the optimal implant position lead to strong instabilities. A three-dimensional finite element model of the intact L1–L5 human lumbar spine was created. Additionally, models of the L1–L5 region implanted with multiple Charité discs ranging from two to four levels were created. The models took into account the possible misalignments in the antero-posterior direction of the artificial discs. All these models were exposed to an axial compression preload of 500xa0N and pure moments of 7.5 Nm in flexion and extension. For central implant positions and the loading case extension, a motion increase of 51% for two implants up to 91% for four implants and a facet force increase of 24% for two implants up to 38% for four implants compared to the intact spine were calculated. In flexion, a motion decrease of 5% for two implants up to 8% for four implants was predicted. Posteriorly placed implants led to a better representation of the intact spine motion. However, lift-off phenomena between the core and the implant endplates were observed in some extension simulations in which the artificial discs were anteriorly or posteriorly implanted. The more artificial discs are implanted, the stronger the motion increase in flexion and extension was predicted with respect to the intact condition. Deviations from the optimal implant position lead to unfavourable kinematics, to high facet joint forces and even to lift-off phenomena. Therefore, multilevel TDA should, if at all, only be performed in appropriate patients with good muscular conditions and by surgeons who can ensure optimal implant positions.

Comparison of the biomechanical effects of posterior and anterior spine-stabilizing implants

Posteriorly and anteriorly fixed implants for stabilizing unstable spines are available on the market. Differences in the biomechanical behavior of these implant types are not yet fully clear. They were investigated using three-dimensional nonlinear finite element models of the lumbar spine in an intact state, with an anteriorly fixed MACS-TL implant and with posteriorly fixed internal fixators. The bisegmental implants spanned the L3 vertebra, and bone grafts were used with both implant types to replace parts of the two bridged discs. The computer models were loaded with partial body weight and muscle forces simulating standing, flexion, extension and axial rotation. Both implant types have reduced intersegmental rotation for flexion, extension, and axial rotation in the bridged region. The reduction is more pronounced for the MACS-TL implant. The implant type has only a minor effect on intradiscal pressure. Maximum von Mises stresses in the vertebrae are lower for flexion and extension with the MACS-TL implant than with the internal fixator. Very high stresses are predicted for flexion after insertion of internal fixators. For standing and torsion, maximum stresses differ only negligibly between the two implant types. In the period immediately after surgery, patients with osteoporotic vertebrae and who are treated with an internal spinal fixation device should therefore avoid excessive flexion. This study adds new information about the mechanical behavior of the lumbar spine after insertion of posterior and anterior spine-stabilizing implants. This information improves our biomechanical understanding of the spine.

Effect of bone graft characteristics on the mechanical behavior of the lumbar spine

There is little information about the influence of bone graft size, position and elasticity on the mechanical behavior of the lumbar spine. Intersegmental motion, intradiscal pressure and stresses in the lumbar spine were calculated using a three-dimensional, nonlinear finite element model which included an internal spinal fixation device and a bone graft. Cross-sectional area, position, and elastic modulus of the graft were varied in this study. Bone grafts, especially very stiff ones, increase stresses on adjacent endplates. Though larger grafts lead to less contact pressure, it is difficult to judge the quality of different bone graft positions. In general, ventral flexion results in lower maximum contact pressure than lateral bending. There is always little intersegmental rotation in the bridged region compared with that of an intact spine.A larger graft with low stiffness should be favored from a mechanical point of view. Patients should avoid lateral bending of the upper body shortly after surgery.

Internal spinal fixator stiffness has only a minor influence on stresses in the adjacent discs.

STUDY DESIGNnStresses in vertebral endplates and discs were calculated using the three-dimensional nonlinear finite-element model of a lumbar spine with an internal spinal fixation device.nnnOBJECTIVEnTo determine the influence of fixator stiffness on stresses in the adjacent discs.nnnSUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATAnThere are few computer models of the lumbar spine with a fixator. Most of these models neglect the muscle forces. Fixator stiffness is assumed to influence greatly the stresses in the adjacent discs.nnnMETHODSnTwo three-dimensional nonlinear finite-element models were used to determine stresses in the lumbar spine for standing and 60 degrees flexion of the upper body. One model had an internal spinal fixator, the other did not. In a parameter study, the diameters of the longitudinal rod of the fixator were assumed to be 3, 5, 7, and 10 mm. In the computer model, the forces of the trunk muscles were simulated.nnnRESULTSnThe diameter of the longitudinal rod strongly affected the fixator loads but hardly influenced the stresses in the vertebral endplates. The stresses in the bridged discs were strongly reduced. However, the internal fixator had only a minor influence on the stresses in the anulus fibrosus and the pressure in the nucleus pulposus of the adjacent discs.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe stiffness of an internal spinal fixation device has only a minor influence on stresses in the adjacent discs.

Comparison of the mechanical behavior of the lumbar spine following mono- and bisegmental stabilization.

OBJECTIVEnTo determine whether the mechanical behavior of the entire lumbar spine differs following mono- and bisegmental stabilization.nnnDESIGNnThe mechanical behavior of the lumbar spine was studied using the finite element method.nnnBACKGROUNDnNonunion is somewhat more frequent after bi- than after monosegmental stabilization of the spine. Little is known about differences between the mechanical behavior associated with these procedures.nnnMETHODSnA three-dimensional nonlinear finite element model of the lumbar spine with internal spinal fixators and bone grafts was used to study mechanical behavior after mono- and bisegmental fixation with and without stabilization of the bridged vertebra. Finite element analyses were performed to determine the influence of four different graft positions, five loading conditions, and six different pretensions in the longitudinal fixator rod. The following parameters were considered: the maximum contact pressure at the interface between the bone graft and vertebral body, the force transmitted by the bone graft, and the size of the contact area between the graft and the vertebral body.nnnRESULTSnOur model shows no clear differences between mono- and bisegmental fixation. Additional stabilization of the bridged vertebra exerts a partly adverse influence on the parameters studied. Pretension in the bridged region has a strong effect on the mechanical behavior.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe mechanical behavior of the lumbar spine after mono- and bisegmental stabilization is similar. Thus biological factors and the surgical procedure are probably decisive in determining the fusion rate.nnnRELEVANCEnKnowledge of the mechanical behavior after stabilization of the spine may help to improve the fusion rate. Our results suggest that the mechanical factors studied have only a minor influence on fusion rate and that other factors, such as incomplete resection of cartilage plate and poor local blood supply, are more decisive.