The design and preliminary tests of posterior dynamic stabilization of lumbar vertebrae by percutaneous placement
CHEN Yuan-Meng, JIN An-Min, FAN Fan, HUANG Bao-Hua, LIU Yong-Gong
Chinese Journal of Clinical Anatomy ›› 2014, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (4) : 458-461.
The design and preliminary tests of posterior dynamic stabilization of lumbar vertebrae by percutaneous placement
Objective To design a posterior dynamic stabilization of lumbar vertebrae by percutaneous placement and evaluate its biomechanical propertiesby experiments. Methods Medical titanium alloy was usedto design a set of pedicle screw rod fixation system. The combining site of body with U screw tail was similar to joint structure. There were 2° range of motion (typeⅠ) and 10° (typeⅡ) range of screw, and hollow screw, and cylindrical connecting rods. Seven adult fresh pig lumbar spine specimens were used for mechanical testing: six lumbar vertebrae were tested three dimensional motion, and all 7 specimens underwent compression test. When tested three dimensional motion, five patterns of state of every specimen were tested in sequence, respectively. The five patterns of state was as followings: complete state (group A), instability state (group B), stiff fixation state (group C), dynamic fixation stateⅠtype (group D), dynamic fixation stateⅡtype (group E). Motions of flexion/extension, lateral bending and axial rotation were produced by six pure moments with maximum of 10.0 N·m and measured with stereo photogrammetry. Results (1)The results of the three dimensional motion test: ①After fixation with typeⅠor typeⅡ, motions of flexion was (1.577±0.177)° and (1.988±0.096)°, respectively. Extension was (1.900±0.119)° and (2.135±0.143)°, respectively. Left lateral bending was (2.549±0.280)° and (2.712±0.215)°, respectively. Right lateral bending, respectively was (2.454±0.201)° and (2.590±0.203)°. Left axial rotation was (1.458±0.294)° and (1.694±0.250)°, respectively. Right axial rotation was (1.666±0.221)° and (1.842±0.163)°, respectively, which was significantly decreased when compared with that the complete state and the state of instability（P<0.05）and were significantly enhanced when compared with that of the stiff fixation state（P<0.05）.②Two kinds of dynamic state of fixed type (ⅠandⅡ) between each other, Ⅱ more thanⅠproneness activity (P<0.05)，but there was no obvious difference of extension, lateral bending and axial rotation (P>0.05). (2)Stiffness measurement results: the maximum load of the two dynamic typeⅠfixed specimens was 3571 N and 2839 N, respectively; The maximum load of the two specimens with dynamic typeⅡ fixed was1961 N and 2365 N, respectively. dynamic fixedⅠandⅡ, and strong fixation stiffness were greater than complete state, and typeⅡless rigid than typeⅠstate. Conclusion The posterior dynamic stabilization of lumbar typeⅠand typeⅡ can ensure stability of the spine, and keep a range of motion，10° of screw motion closer to the spinal physiological activities. The range of motion of screw has effects on the strength of the internal fixator.
Percutaneous / Minimal invasive / Posterior dynamic stabilization / Lumbar / Biomechanical
[1] Fritzell P, Hägg O, Nordwall A，et al. Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective randomized study. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group
[J]. Eur Spine J, 2003, 12(2):178-189.
[2] Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine
[J].J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2004, 86(7):1497-1503.
[3] Smith KR, Hunt TR, Asher MA, et al. The effect of a stiff spinal implant on the bone-mineral content of the lumbar spine in dogs
[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1991 , 73(1):115-123.
[4] 刘涛,李长清,周跃,等. 新型经皮椎弓根螺钉系统的设计与生物力学测试
[J]. 中华骨科杂志, 2010, 30(6): 594-599.
[5] Sengupta DK, Herkowitz HN. Pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilization: literature review
[J]. Adv Orthop, 2012, 2012:424268.
[6] Khoueir P, Kim KA, Wang MY. Classification of posterior dynam-ic stabilization devices
[J]. Neurosurg Focus, 2007,22(1):E3.1-8.
[7] Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L. Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants
[J]. Eur Spine J, 1998, 7(2):148-54.
[8] Panjabi MM, Crisco JJ, Vasavada A, et al. Mechanical properties of the human cervical spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves
[J].Spine, 2001, 26(24):2692-2700.
[9] Jia H, Zhu S, Ma J, et al. A biomechanical study of the recovery in spinal stability of flexion/extension and torsion after the resection of different posterior lumbar structures in a sheep model
[J]. Proc Inst Mech Eng H, 2013, 227(8):866-874.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
