Tara F. Bonner

Hybrid dynamic stabilization: a biomechanical assessment of adjacent and supraadjacent levels of the lumbar spine

OBJECT The object of this study was to evaluate the effect of hybrid dynamic stabilization on adjacent levels of the lumbar spine. METHODS Seven human spine specimens from T-12 to the sacrum were used. The following conditions were implemented: 1) intact spine; 2) fusion of L4-5 with bilateral pedicle screws and titanium rods; and 3) supplementation of the L4-5 fusion with pedicle screw dynamic stabilization constructs at L3-4, with the purpose of protecting the L3-4 level from excessive range of motion (ROM) and to create a smoother motion transition to the rest of the lumbar spine. An industrial robot was used to apply continuous pure moment (± 2 Nm) in flexion-extension with and without a follower load, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Intersegmental rotations of the fused, dynamically stabilized, and adjacent levels were measured and compared. RESULTS In flexion-extension only, the rigid instrumentation at L4-5 caused a 78% decrease in the segments ROM when compared with the intact specimen. To compensate, it caused an increase in motion at adjacent levels L1-2 (45.6%) and L2-3 (23.2%) only. The placement of the dynamic construct at L3-4 decreased the operated levels ROM by 80.4% (similar stability as the fusion at L4-5), when compared with the intact specimen, and caused a significant increase in motion at all tested adjacent levels. In flexion-extension with a follower load, instrumentation at L4-5 affected only a subadjacent level, L5-sacrum (52.0%), while causing a reduction in motion at the operated level (L4-5, -76.4%). The dynamic construct caused a significant increase in motion at the adjacent levels T12-L1 (44.9%), L1-2 (57.3%), and L5-sacrum (83.9%), while motion at the operated level (L3-4) was reduced by 76.7%. In lateral bending, instrumentation at L4-5 increased motion at only T12-L1 (22.8%). The dynamic construct at L3-4 caused an increase in motion at T12-L1 (69.9%), L1-2 (59.4%), L2-3 (44.7%), and L5-sacrum (43.7%). In axial rotation, only the placement of the dynamic construct at L3-4 caused a significant increase in motion of the adjacent levels L2-3 (25.1%) and L5-sacrum (31.4%). CONCLUSIONS The dynamic stabilization system displayed stability characteristics similar to a solid, all-metal construct. Its addition of the supraadjacent level (L3-4) to the fusion (L4-5) did protect the adjacent level from excessive motion. However, it essentially transformed a 1-level lumbar fusion into a 2-level lumbar fusion, with exponential transfer of motion to the fewer remaining discs.

Biomechanical evaluation of a simulated T-9 burst fracture of the thoracic spine with an intact rib cage.

OBJECT Classic biomechanical models have used thoracic spines disarticulated from the rib cage, but the biomechanical influence of the rib cage on fracture biomechanics has not been investigated. The well-accepted construct for stabilizing midthoracic fractures is posterior instrumentation 3 levels above and 2 levels below the injury. Short-segment fixation failure in thoracolumbar burst fractures has led to kyphosis and implant failure when anterior column support is lacking. Whether shorter constructs are viable in the midthoracic spine is a point of controversy. The objective of this study was the biomechanical evaluation of a burst fracture at T-9 with an intact rib cage using different fixation constructs for stabilizing the spine. METHODS A total of 8 human cadaveric spines (C7-L1) with intact rib cages were used in this study. The range of motion (ROM) between T-8 and T-10 was the outcome measure. A robotic spine testing system was programmed to apply pure moment loads (± 5 Nm) in lateral bending, flexion-extension, and axial rotation to whole thoracic specimens. Intersegmental rotations were measured using an optoelectronic system. Flexibility tests were conducted on intact specimens, then sequentially after surgically induced fracture at T-9, and after each of 4 fixation construct patterns. The 4 construct patterns were sequentially tested in a nondestructive protocol, as follows: 1) 3 above/2 below (3A/2B); 2) 1 above/1 below (1A/1B); 3) 1 above/1 below with vertebral body augmentation (1A/1B w/VA); and 4) vertebral body augmentation with no posterior instrumentation (VA). A repeated-measures ANOVA was used to compare the segmental motion between T-8 and T-10 vertebrae. RESULTS Mean ROM increased by 86%, 151%, and 31% after fracture in lateral bending, flexion-extension, and axial rotation, respectively. In lateral bending, there was significant reduction compared with intact controls for all 3 instrumented constructs: 3A/2B (-92%, p = 0.0004), 1A/1B (-63%, p = 0.0132), and 1A/1B w/VA (-66%, p = 0.0150). In flexion-extension, only the 3A/2B pattern showed a significant reduction (-90%, p = 0.011). In axial rotation, motion was significantly reduced for the 3 instrumented constructs: 3A/2B (-66%, p = 0.0001), 1A/1B (-53%, p = 0.0001), and 1A/1B w/VA (-51%, p = 0.0002). Between the 4 construct patterns, the 3 instrumented constructs (3A/2B, 1A/1B, and 1A/1B w/VA) showed comparable stability in all 3 motion planes. CONCLUSIONS This study showed no significant difference in the stability of the 3 instrumented constructs tested when the rib cage is intact. Fractures that might appear more grossly unstable when tested in the disarticulated spine may be bolstered by the ribs. This may affect the extent of segmental spinal instrumentation needed to restore stability in some spine injuries. While these initial findings suggest that shorter constructs may adequately stabilize the spine in this fracture model, further study is needed before these results can be extrapolated to clinical application.

Impingement and stability of total hip arthroplasty versus femoral head resurfacing using a cadaveric robotics model

We identified and compared the impingent‐free range of motion (ROM) and subluxation potential for native hip, femoral head resurfacing (FHR), and total hip arthroplasty (THA). These constructs were also compared both with and without soft tissue to elucidate the role of the soft tissue. Five fresh‐frozen bilateral hip specimens were mounted to a six‐degree of freedom robotic manipulator. Under load‐control parameters, in vivo mechanics were recreated to evaluate impingement free ROM, and the subluxation potential in two “at risk” positions for native hip, FHR, and THA. Impingement‐free ROM of the skeletonized THA was greater than FHR for the anterior subluxation position. For skeletonized posterior subluxations, stability for THA and FHR constructs were similar, while a different pattern was observed for specimens with soft tissues intact. FHR constructs were more stable than THA constructs for both anterior and posterior subluxations. When the femoral neck is intact the joint has an earlier impingement profile placing the hip at risk for subluxation. However, FHR design was shown to be more stable than THA only when soft tissues were intact.

Adaptive Hybrid Control Algorithm With Iterative Learning for Robotic In Vitro Biomechanical Testing of Spine

In spine testing, methods have been developed to apply pure moments to a single axis of the spine to elucidate the mechanical properties of the spine. The application of those concepts continues to be applied with custom loading frames, custom robotics systems, and adaptation of commercial robotic technology. With these systems and pure moment testing, spinal biomechanics variables such as the neutral zone and range of motion can be determined. As more complex testing systems with higher degrees of freedom (DOF) capabilities are developed, dynamic testing becomes a possibility. However, these more complex testing systems require more complex control schemes.Copyright

Comprehensive identification of tibiofemoral joint anatomy and mechanical response: Pathway to multiscale characterization

The human knee joint is a complex multi-body structure, whose substructures greatly affect its mechanical response. An understanding of the multiscale mechanics of the joint is essential for the prevention and treatment of knee joint injuries and pathologies. Due to the limitations associated with in vivo experimentation, mechanical characterization of the knee joint has commonly relied on in vitro experimentation [1,2]. Predictive and descriptive studies of the mechanical function of the knee and its substructures have commonly employed computational modeling, in particular finite element (FE) analysis, which can be driven by experimental data. With the recent focus on the use of FE models of the knee joint for scientific and clinical purposes [3–5], data for model development, verification, and validation became increasingly important, especially when relying on FE analysis for decision making. An adequate representation of a joint not only depends on the specimen-specific anatomy but may also need to be informed by specimen-specific tissue properties for model development, and specimen-specific joint/tissue response to confirm model response.Copyright

Robotically Controlled Variation of the Instantaneous Center of Rotation: The Effects on Kinetics and Kinematics of Cervical Spine

Cervical spine loads are complex, with different head and neck movements producing different spine loading conditions. Imagine performing a chin tuck, (this simple action predominantly utilizes mostly upper cervical segments), or stretching out your neck to look down over something (this action requires the utilization of lower level cervical segments). The effect in both cases is neck flexion, but cervical spine loads may vary greatly. With a trend towards increasing fidelity and in vivo applicability of in vitro simulations [1], this study aimed to provide a novel biomechanical assessment of the influence of varying the location of the regional Instantaneous Center of Rotation (ICR) on the kinetics and kinematics of the cervical spine.Copyright