Arno Bisschop

Effects of repetitive movement on range of motion and stiffness around the neutral orientation of the human lumbar spine

In loading experiments on the lumbar spine, typically three consecutive loading cycles are applied of which the third cycle is used for analysis. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of ten instead of three loading cycles reduces effects of viscoelastic behavior in the assessment of range of motion (ROM) and stiffness around the neutral orientation of the human lumbar spine. To this end, twelve cadaveric human lumbar spines (L1-L5) were obtained (mean age: 76.9 years). Before testing, the spines were subjected to a compressive load of 250 N for 1 h. To each spine, ten consecutive loading cycles were applied (-4 Nm to+4 Nm) in flexion and extension (FE), lateral bending (LB) and axial rotation (AR). The ROM and stiffness within the neutral zone were calculated per motion segment (L2-L3, L3-L4 or L4-L5) from load-displacement data. It was found that the ROM increased significantly (all p<0.001) in all directions after three (FE: 0.07 degree/1.0%, LB: 0.08 degree/1.5%, and AR: 0.04 degree/1.5%) and after ten loading cycles (FE: 0.20 degree/2.9%, LB: 0.16 degree/3.3%, and AR: 0.09 degree/3.3%). Stiffness was not significantly affected, but varied considerably over cycles. Although effects were small, assessment of the tenth cycle instead of the third cycle reduces viscoelastic effects in repeated measurements of ROM, because the spine is closer to a steady state condition, while averaging over loading cycles would improve the assessment of stiffness estimates.

The Effects of Single-Level Instrumented Lumbar Laminectomy on Adjacent Spinal Biomechanics

Study Design Biomechanical study. Objective Posterior instrumentation is used to stabilize the spine after a lumbar laminectomy. However, the effects on the adjacent segmental stability are unknown. Therefore, we studied the range of motion (ROM) and stiffness of treated lumbar spinal segments and cranial segments after a laminectomy and after posterior instrumentation in flexion and extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR). These outcomes might help to better understand adjacent segment disease (ASD), which is reported cranial to the level on which posterior instrumentation is applied. Methods We obtained 12 cadaveric human lumbar spines. Spines were axially loaded with 250 N for 1 hour. Thereafter, 10 consecutive load cycles (4 Nm) were applied in FE, LB, and AR. Subsequently, a laminectomy was performed either at L2 or at L4. Thereafter, load-deformation tests were repeated, after similar preloading. Finally, posterior instrumentation was added to the level treated with a laminectomy before testing was repeated. The ROM and stiffness of the treated, the cranial adjacent, and the control segments were calculated from the load-displacement data. Repeated-measures analyses of variance used the spinal level as the between-subject factor and a laminectomy or instrumentation as the within-subject factors. Results After the laminectomy, the ROM increased (+19.4%) and the stiffness decreased (−18.0%) in AR. The ROM in AR of the adjacent segments also increased (+11.0%). The ROM of treated segments after instrumentation decreased in FE (−74.3%), LB (−71.6%), and AR (−59.8%). In the adjacent segments after instrumentation, only the ROM in LB was changed (−12.9%). Conclusions The present findings do not substantiate a biomechanical pathway toward or explanation for ASD.

Single level lumbar laminectomy alters segmental biomechanical behavior without affecting adjacent segments

BACKGROUND Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis causes neurological symptoms due to neural compression. Lumbar laminectomy is a commonly used treatment for symptomatic degenerative spinal stenosis. However, it is unknown if and to what extent single level laminectomy affects the range of motion and stiffness of treated and adjacent segments. An increase in range of motion and a decrease in stiffness are possible predictors of post-operative spondylolisthesis or spinal failure. METHODS Twelve cadaveric human lumbar spines were obtained. After preloading, spines were tested in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Subsequently, single level lumbar laminectomy analogous to clinical practice was performed at level lumbar 2 or 4. Thereafter, load-deformation tests were repeated. The range of motion and stiffness of treated and adjacent segments were calculated before and after laminectomy. Untreated segments were used as control group. Effects of laminectomy on stiffness and range of motion were tested, separately for treated, adjacent and control segments, using repeated measures analysis of variance. FINDINGS Range of motion at the level of laminectomy increased significantly for flexion and extension (7.3%), lateral bending (7.5%), and axial rotation (12.2%). Range of motion of adjacent segments was only significantly affected in lateral bending (-7.7%). Stiffness was not affected by laminectomy. INTERPRETATION The increase in range of motion of 7-12% does not seem to indicate the use of additional instrumentation to stabilize the lumbar spine. If instrumentation is still considered in a patient, its primary focus should be on re-stabilizing only the treated segment level.

Quantitative MRI in early intervertebral disc degeneration: T1rho correlates better than T2 and ADC with biomechanics, histology and matrix content

Introduction Low-back pain (LBP) has been correlated to the presence of intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration on T2-weighted (T2w) MRI. It remains challenging, however, to accurately stage degenerative disc disease (DDD) based on T2w MRI and measurements of IVD height, particularly for early DDD. Several quantitative MRI techniques have been introduced to detect changes in matrix composition signifying early DDD. In this study, we correlated quantitative T2, T1rho and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) values to disc mechanical behavior and gold standard early DDD markers in a graded degenerated lumbar IVD caprine model, to assess their potential for early DDD detection. Methods Lumbar caprine IVDs were injected with either 0.25 U/ml or 0.5 U/ml Chondroïtinase ABC (Cabc) to trigger early DDD-like degeneration. Injection with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) served as control. IVDs were cultured in a bioreactor for 20 days under axial physiological loading. High-resolution 9.4 T MR images were obtained prior to intervention and after culture. Quantitative MR results were correlated to recovery behavior, histological degeneration grading, and the content of glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) and water. Results Cabc-injected IVDs showed aberrancies in biomechanics and loss of GAGs without changes in water-content. All MR sequences detected changes in matrix composition, with T1rho showing largest changes pre-to-post in the nucleus, and significantly more than T2 and ADC. Histologically, degeneration due to Cabc injection was mild. T1rho nucleus values correlated strongest with altered biomechanics, histological degeneration score, and loss of GAGs. Conclusions T2- and T1rho quantitative MR-mapping detected early DDD changes. T1rho nucleus values correlated better than T2 and ADC with biomechanical, histological, and GAG changes. Clinical implementation of quantitative MRI, T1rho particularly, could aid in distinguishing DDD more reliably at an earlier stage in the degenerative process.

Static axial overloading primes lumbar caprine intervertebral discs for posterior herniation.

Introduction Lumbar hernias occur mostly in the posterolateral region of IVDs and mechanical loading is an important risk factor. Studies show that dynamic and static overloading affect the nucleus and annulus of the IVD differently. We hypothesize there is also variance in the effect of overloading on the IVD’s anterior, lateral and posterior annulus, which could explain the predilection of herniations in the posterolateral region. We assessed the regional mechanical and cellular responses of lumbar caprine discs to dynamic and static overloading. Material and methods IVDs (n = 125) were cultured in a bioreactor and subjected to simulated-physiological loading (SPL), high dynamic (HD), or high static (HS) overloading. The effect of loading was determined in five disc regions: nucleus, inner-annulus and anterior, lateral and posterior outer-annulus. IVD height loss and external pressure transfer during loading were measured, cell viability was mapped and quantified, and matrix integrity was assessed. Results During culture, overloaded IVDs lost a significant amount of height, yet the distribution of axial pressure remained unchanged. HD loading caused cell death and disruption of matrix in all IVD regions, whereas HS loading particularly affected cell viability and matrix integrity in the posterior region of the outer annulus. Conclusion Axial overloading is detrimental to the lumbar IVD. Static overloading affects the posterior annulus more strongly, while the nucleus is relatively spared. Hence, static overloading predisposes the disc for posterior herniation. These findings could have implications for working conditions, in particular of sedentary occupations, and the design of interventions aimed at prevention and treatment of early intervertebral disc degeneration.

A Novel Spinal Implant for Fusionless Scoliosis Correction: A Biomechanical Analysis of the Motion Preserving Properties of a Posterior Periapical Concave Distraction Device

Study Design: Biomechanical study. Objective: Recently, a posterior concave periapical distraction device for fusionless scoliosis correction was introduced. The goal of this study was to quantify the effect of the periapical distraction device on spinal range of motion (ROM) in comparison with traditional rigid pedicle screw-rod instrumentation. Methods: Using a spinal motion simulator, 6 human spines were loaded with 4 N m and 6 porcine spines with 2 N m to induce flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR). ROM was measured in 3 conditions: untreated, periapical distraction device, and rigid pedicle screw-rod instrumentation. Results: The periapical distraction device caused a significant (P < .05) decrease in ROM of FE (human, −40.0% and porcine, −55.9%) and LB (human, −18.2% and porcine, −17.9%) as compared to the untreated spine, while ROM of AR remained unaffected. In comparison, rigid instrumentation caused a significantly (P < .05) larger decrease in ROM of FE (human, −80.9% and porcine, −94.0%), LB (human, −75.0% and porcine, −92.2%), and AR (human, −71.3% and porcine, −86.9%). Conclusions: Although no destructive forces were applied, no device failures were observed. Spinal ROM was significantly less constrained by the periapical distraction device compared to rigid pedicle screw-rod instrumentation. Therefore, provided that scoliosis correction is achieved, a more physiological spinal motion is expected after scoliosis correction with the posterior concave periapical distraction device.

Market approval processes for new types of spinal devices: challenges and recommendations for improvement

BackgroundSpinal pathology and related symptoms are among the most common health problems and are associated with high health care costs and productivity losses. Due to the aging population, these costs are further increasing every year. Another important reason for the increasing costs is the market approval of new technologies, such as spinal devices that are usually more expensive than the existing technologies. Previous cases of medical device failure led to concern about possible deficiencies in the market approval process.ObjectiveThe objective is to provide an overview of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation regarding spinal implants to delineate the challenges and opportunities that spine surgery currently faces.Methods In this paper, two cases of market entries of spinal devices are presented and evaluated to illustrate these deficiencies.ResultsSpinal implant regulation is facing several challenges. New spinal devices should increase patient outcomes and safety at reasonable societal costs. The main challenge is to have a rigorous evaluation before dissemination, while still leaving room for innovative behavior that thrusts the healthcare practice forward.Conclusion We have provided recommendations to enhance spinal implant regulation and improve and ensure the patient’s safety and the future of spine surgery.