Document Detail


Comparison of Three Posterior Dynamic Stabilization Devices.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  21358482     Owner:  NLM     Status:  Publisher    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
ABSTRACT: Study Design: A biomechanical study using human cadaveric lumbar spinal motion segments and three different posterior stabilization devices.Objective: To compare the range of motion, disc height, and foraminal area of a spinal motion segment intact, injured, and fixed with each of three posterior lumbar motion preservation devices.Summary of Background Data: Motion-sparing lumbar posterior dynamic stabilization devices are gaining increasing popularity, particularly for the treatment of degenerative disc disease.Methods: The PercuDyn, X-Stop, and Isobar posterior stabilization devices were compared using an in vitro cadaveric model. Pure moments of +8/-8 Nm were applied in all three planes, then a follower load of 700 N was applied and sagittal bending tests were repeated. All tests were conducted using an 8-degree-of-freedom servohydraulic load frame. Experiments were performed intact, with a simulated injury, and then with each of the three devices for a total of four specimens per device. Foraminal area and disc height (posterolateral and anterior surface), were measured under neutral and peak torque in all three planes and range of motion was recorded for all experimental conditions.Results: Overall, the injury model successfully increased range of motion and decreased disc height and foraminal area. Once treated with one of the three implants, the PercuDyn was most effective at preventing hyperextension, decreasing extension with a follow load by a mean of 52% compared to injured conditions (P = 0.07). The X-Stop stabilized the posterior column, increasing foraminal area under all conditions, particularly loaded extension by 27% compared to injured conditions (P = 0.01). The Isobar, the only device to stabilize the anterior column, increased anterior disc height under loaded flexion by 22% (P = 0.03).Conclusions: All three devices functioned as intended by their respective manufacturers, but each appeared to excel in different areas; therefore, each should be used for unique clinical applications.
Authors:
Sophia N Sangiorgio; Hormoz Sheikh; Sean L Borkowski; Larry Khoo; Christopher R Warren; Edward Ebramzadeh
Publication Detail:
Type:  JOURNAL ARTICLE     Date:  2011-2-24
Journal Detail:
Title:  Spine     Volume:  -     ISSN:  1528-1159     ISO Abbreviation:  -     Publication Date:  2011 Feb 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2011-3-1     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  7610646     Medline TA:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)     Country:  -    
Other Details:
Languages:  ENG     Pagination:  -     Citation Subset:  -    
Affiliation:
1 J. Vernon Luck, Sr., MD Orthopaedic Research Center at Orthopaedic Hospital/UCLA Department of Orthopaedic Surgery 2 University of California Los Angeles Comprehensive Spine Center 3 University of California Los Angeles, Department of Biomedical Engineering 4 Interventional Spine, Inc., Irvine, CA.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Charlson Score is a Robust Predictor of 30-Day Complications following Spinal Metastasis Surgery.
Next Document:  Analysis of Sagittal Spinopelvic Parameters in Achondroplasia.