Does Semi-Rigid Instrumentation Using Both Flexion and Extension Dampening Spacers Truly Provide an Intermediate Level of Stabilization?
Conventional posterior dynamic stabilization devices demonstrated a tendency towards highly rigid stabilization approximating that of titanium rods in flexion. In extension, they excessively offload the index segment, making the device as the sole load-bearing structure, with concerns of device fail...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2013-01-01
|
| Series: | Advances in Orthopedics |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/738252 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832567213829128192 |
|---|---|
| author | Dilip Sengupta Brandon Bucklen Aditya Ingalhalikar Aditya Muzumdar Saif Khalil |
| author_facet | Dilip Sengupta Brandon Bucklen Aditya Ingalhalikar Aditya Muzumdar Saif Khalil |
| author_sort | Dilip Sengupta |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Conventional posterior dynamic stabilization devices demonstrated a tendency towards highly rigid stabilization approximating that of titanium rods in flexion. In extension, they excessively offload the index segment, making the device as the sole load-bearing structure, with concerns of device failure. The goal of this study was to compare the kinematics and intradiscal pressure of monosegmental stabilization utilizing a new device that incorporates both a flexion and extension dampening spacer to that of rigid internal fixation and a conventional posterior dynamic stabilization device. The hypothesis was the new device would minimize the overloading of adjacent levels compared to rigid and conventional devices which can only bend but not stretch. The biomechanics were compared following injury in a human cadaveric lumbosacral spine under simulated physiological loading conditions. The stabilization with the new posterior dynamic stabilization device significantly reduced motion uniformly in all loading directions, but less so than rigid fixation. The evaluation of adjacent level motion and pressure showed some benefit of the new device when compared to rigid fixation. Posterior dynamic stabilization designs which both bend and stretch showed improved kinematic and load-sharing properties when compared to rigid fixation and when indirectly compared to existing conventional devices without a bumper. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-09e16d5f63f24e3d9d317ea762e2eb1c |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2090-3464 2090-3472 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2013-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Advances in Orthopedics |
| spelling | doaj-art-09e16d5f63f24e3d9d317ea762e2eb1c2025-02-03T01:02:00ZengWileyAdvances in Orthopedics2090-34642090-34722013-01-01201310.1155/2013/738252738252Does Semi-Rigid Instrumentation Using Both Flexion and Extension Dampening Spacers Truly Provide an Intermediate Level of Stabilization?Dilip Sengupta0Brandon Bucklen1Aditya Ingalhalikar2Aditya Muzumdar3Saif Khalil4Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Orthopedics, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH 03756-0001, USAGlobus Medical Inc., Valley Forge Business Center, 2560 General Armistead Avenue, Audubon, PA 19403, USAGlobus Medical Inc., Valley Forge Business Center, 2560 General Armistead Avenue, Audubon, PA 19403, USAGlobus Medical Inc., Valley Forge Business Center, 2560 General Armistead Avenue, Audubon, PA 19403, USAGlobus Medical Inc., Valley Forge Business Center, 2560 General Armistead Avenue, Audubon, PA 19403, USAConventional posterior dynamic stabilization devices demonstrated a tendency towards highly rigid stabilization approximating that of titanium rods in flexion. In extension, they excessively offload the index segment, making the device as the sole load-bearing structure, with concerns of device failure. The goal of this study was to compare the kinematics and intradiscal pressure of monosegmental stabilization utilizing a new device that incorporates both a flexion and extension dampening spacer to that of rigid internal fixation and a conventional posterior dynamic stabilization device. The hypothesis was the new device would minimize the overloading of adjacent levels compared to rigid and conventional devices which can only bend but not stretch. The biomechanics were compared following injury in a human cadaveric lumbosacral spine under simulated physiological loading conditions. The stabilization with the new posterior dynamic stabilization device significantly reduced motion uniformly in all loading directions, but less so than rigid fixation. The evaluation of adjacent level motion and pressure showed some benefit of the new device when compared to rigid fixation. Posterior dynamic stabilization designs which both bend and stretch showed improved kinematic and load-sharing properties when compared to rigid fixation and when indirectly compared to existing conventional devices without a bumper.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/738252 |
| spellingShingle | Dilip Sengupta Brandon Bucklen Aditya Ingalhalikar Aditya Muzumdar Saif Khalil Does Semi-Rigid Instrumentation Using Both Flexion and Extension Dampening Spacers Truly Provide an Intermediate Level of Stabilization? Advances in Orthopedics |
| title | Does Semi-Rigid Instrumentation Using Both Flexion and Extension Dampening Spacers Truly Provide an Intermediate Level of Stabilization? |
| title_full | Does Semi-Rigid Instrumentation Using Both Flexion and Extension Dampening Spacers Truly Provide an Intermediate Level of Stabilization? |
| title_fullStr | Does Semi-Rigid Instrumentation Using Both Flexion and Extension Dampening Spacers Truly Provide an Intermediate Level of Stabilization? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Does Semi-Rigid Instrumentation Using Both Flexion and Extension Dampening Spacers Truly Provide an Intermediate Level of Stabilization? |
| title_short | Does Semi-Rigid Instrumentation Using Both Flexion and Extension Dampening Spacers Truly Provide an Intermediate Level of Stabilization? |
| title_sort | does semi rigid instrumentation using both flexion and extension dampening spacers truly provide an intermediate level of stabilization |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/738252 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dilipsengupta doessemirigidinstrumentationusingbothflexionandextensiondampeningspacerstrulyprovideanintermediatelevelofstabilization AT brandonbucklen doessemirigidinstrumentationusingbothflexionandextensiondampeningspacerstrulyprovideanintermediatelevelofstabilization AT adityaingalhalikar doessemirigidinstrumentationusingbothflexionandextensiondampeningspacerstrulyprovideanintermediatelevelofstabilization AT adityamuzumdar doessemirigidinstrumentationusingbothflexionandextensiondampeningspacerstrulyprovideanintermediatelevelofstabilization AT saifkhalil doessemirigidinstrumentationusingbothflexionandextensiondampeningspacerstrulyprovideanintermediatelevelofstabilization |