Research Papers

A Computational Biomechanical Investigation of Posterior Dynamic Instrumentation: Combination of Dynamic Rod and Hinged (Dynamic) Screw

[+] Author and Article Information
Deniz U. Erbulut

Department of Mechanical
Engineering and Neurosurgery,
Koc University, Sariyer,
Istanbul 34450, Turkey
e-mail: erbulutdeniz@gmail.com and

Ali Kiapour

Departments of Bioengineering
and Orthopedic Surgery,
E-CORE, University of Toledo,
Toledo, OH 43606
e-mail: Kiapour@asme.org

Tunc Oktenoglu

Vehbi Koc Foundation American Hospital,
Nisantasi, Istanbul 34365, Turkey
e-mail: tuncoktenoglu@gmail.com

Ali F. Ozer

Department of Neurosurgery,
Koc University, Sariyer,
Istanbul 34450, Turkey
e-mail: alifahirozer@gmail.com

Vijay K. Goel

Departments of Bioengineering
and Orthopedic Surgery,
E-CORE, University of Toledo,
Toledo, OH 43606
e-mail: vijay.goel@utoledo.edu

Contributed by the Bioengineering Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. Manuscript received October 9, 2013; final manuscript received February 26, 2014; accepted manuscript posted March 6, 2014; published online April 10, 2014. Assoc. Editor: James C. Iatridis.

J Biomech Eng 136(5), 051007 (Apr 10, 2014) (7 pages) Paper No: BIO-13-1486; doi: 10.1115/1.4027060 History: Received October 09, 2013; Revised February 26, 2014; Accepted March 06, 2014

Currently, rigid fixation systems are the gold standard for degenerative disk disease treatment. Dynamic fixation systems have been proposed as alternatives for the treatment of a variety of spinal disorders. These systems address the main drawbacks of traditional rigid fixation systems, such as adjacent segment degeneration and instrumentation failure. Pedicle-screw-based dynamic stabilization (PDS) is one type of these alternative systems. The aim of this study was to simulate the biomechanical effect of a novel posterior dynamic stabilization system, which is comprised of dynamic (hinged) screws interconnected with a coiled, spring-based dynamic rod (DSDR), and compare it to semirigid (DSRR and RSRR) and rigid stabilization (RSRR) systems. A validated finite element (FE) model of L1-S1 was used to quantify the biomechanical parameters of the spine, such as range of motion, intradiskal pressure, stresses and facet loads after single-level instrumentation with different posterior stabilization systems. The results obtained from in vitro experimental intact and instrumented spines were used to validate the FE model, and the validated model was then used to compare the biomechanical effects of different fixation and stabilization constructs with intact under a hybrid loading protocol. The segmental motion at L4–L5 increased by 9.5% and 16.3% in flexion and left rotation, respectively, in DSDR with respect to the intact spine, whereas it was reduced by 6.4% and 10.9% in extension and left-bending loads, respectively. After instrumentation-induced intradiskal pressure at adjacent segments, L3-L4 and L5-S1 became less than the intact in dynamic rod constructs (DSDR and RSDR) except in the RSDR model in extension where the motion was higher than intact by 9.7% at L3-L4 and 11.3% at L5-S1. The facet loads were insignificant, not exceeding 12N in any of the instrumented cases in flexion. In extension, the facet load in DSDR case was similar to that in intact spine. The dynamic rod constructions (DSDR and RSDR) led to a lesser peak stress at screws compared with rigid rod constructions (DSRR and RSRR) in all loading cases. A dynamic construct consisting of a dynamic rod and a dynamic screw did protect the adjacent level from excessive motion.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Cho, B. Y., Murovic, J., Park, K. W., and Park, J., 2010, “Lumbar Disc Rehydration Postimplantation of a Posterior Dynamic Stabilization System,” J. Neurosurg. Spine, 13(5), pp. 576–80. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sengupta, D. K., 2004, “Dynamic Stabilization Devices in the Treatment of Low Back Pain,” Orthop. Clin. North Am., 35(1), pp. 43–56. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mageswaran, P., Techy, F., Colbrunn, R. W., Bonner, T. F., and McLain, R. F., 2012, “Hybrid Dynamic Stabilization: A Biomechanical Assessment of Adjacent and Supraadjacent Levels of the Lumbar Spine,” J. Neuorsurg. Spine, 17, pp. 232–242. [CrossRef]
Schmoelz, W., Huber, J. F., Nydegger, T., Dipl–Ing, Claes, L., and Wilke, H. J., 2003, “Dynamic Stabilization of the Lumbar Spine and Its Effects on Adjacent Segments: An in vitro Experiment,” J. Spinal Disord. Tech., 16(4), pp. 418–423. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ianuzzi, A., Kurtz, S. M., Kane, W., Shah, P., Siskey, R., van Ooij, A., Bindal, R., Ross, R., Lanman, T., Büttner-Janz, K., and Isaza, J., 2010, “ In Vivo Deformation, Surface Damage, and Biostability of Retrieved Dynesys Systems,” Spine, 35(23), pp. E1310–E1316. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Goel, V. K., Konz, R. J., Chang, H. T., Grosland, N. M., Grobler, L. J., and Chesmel, K. D., 2001, “Hinged-Dynamic Posterior Device Permits Greater Loads on the Graft and Similar Stability as Compared With Its Equivalent Rigid Device: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Assessment,” J. Prosthet. Orthot., 13(1), pp. 17–20. [CrossRef]
Sengupta, D. K., and Herkowitz, H. N., 2012, “Pedicle Screw-Based Posterior Dynamic Stabilization: Literature Review,” Adv. Orthop., 2012, p. 424268. [CrossRef]
Jahng, T.-A., Kim, Y. E., and Moon, K. Y., 2013, “Comparison of the Biomechanical Effect of Pedicle-Based Dynamic Stabilization: A Study Using Finite Element Analysis,” Spine J., 13(1), pp. 85–94. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dooris, A. P., Goel, V. K., Grosland, N. M., Gilbertson, L. G., and Wilder, D. G., 2001, “Load-Sharing Between Anterior and Posterior Elements in a Lumbar Motion Segment Implanted With an Artificial Disc,” Spine, 26(6), pp. E122–E129. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Goel, V. K., Grauer, J. N., Patel, T. C., Biyani, A., Sairyo, K., Vishnubhotla, S., Matyas, A., Cowgill, I., Shaw, M., Long, R., Dick, D., Panjabi, M. M., and Serhan, H., 2005, “Effects of Charité Artificial Disc on the Implanted and Adjacent Spinal Segments Mechanics Using a Hybrid Testing Protocol,” Spine, 30(24), pp. 2755–2764. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Grauer, J. N., Biyani, A., Faizan, A., Kiapour, A., Sairyo, K., Ivanov, A., Ebraheim, N. A., Patel, T. C., and Goel, V. K., 2006, “Biomechanics of Two-Level Charité Artificial Disc Placement in Comparison to Fusion Plus Single-Level Disc Placement Combination,” Spine J., 6(6), pp. 659–666. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ivanov, A. A., Kiapour, A., Ebraheim, N. A., and Goel, V., 2009, “Lumbar Fusion Leads to Increases in Angular Motion and Stress Across Sacroiliac Joint: A Finite Element Study,” Spine, 34(5), pp. E162–E169. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kiapour, A., Ambati, D., Hoy, R. W., and Goel, V. K., 2012, “Effect of Graded Facetectomy on Biomechanics of Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization System,” Spine, 37(10), pp. E581–E589. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sairyo, K., Goel, V. K., Vadapalli, S., Vishnubhotla, S. L., Biyani, A., Ebraheim, N., Terai, T., and Sakai, T., 2006, “Biomechanical Comparison of Lumbar Spine With or Without Spina Bifida Occulta. A Finite Element Analysis,” Spinal Cord, 44(7), pp. 440–444. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
OktenogluT., Erbulut, D. U., Kiapour, A., Ozer, A. F., Lazoglu, I., Kaner, T., Sasani, M., and Goel, V. K., 2014,“Pedicle Screw-Based Posterior Dynamic Stabilization of the Lumbar Spine: In vitro Cadaver Investigation and A Finite Element Study,” Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. (in press). [CrossRef]
Panjabi, M. M., 2007, “Hybrid Multidirectional Test Method to Evaluate Spinal Adjacent–Level Effects,” Clin. Biomech., 22(3), pp. 257–265. [CrossRef]
Mulholland, R. C., and Sengupta, D. K., 2002, “Rationale, Principles and Experimental Evaluation of the Concept of Soft Stabilization,” Eur. Spine J.11(s2), pp. S198–S205. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Niosi, C. A., Wilson, D. C., Zhu, Q., Keynan, O., Wilson, D. R., and Oxland, T. R., 2008, “The Effect of Dynamic Posterior Stabilization on Facet Joint Contact Forces: An in vitro Investigation,” Spine, 33(1), pp. 19–26. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ko, C.-C., Tsai, H.-W., Huang, W.-C., Wu, J.-C., Chen, Y.-C., Shih, Y.-H., Chen, H.-C., Wu, C.-L., and Cheng, H., 2010, “Screw Loosening in the Dynesys Stabilization System: Radiographic Evidence and Effect on Outcomes,” Neurosurg. Focus, 28(6), p. E10. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Schnake, K. J., Schaeren, S., and Jeanneret, B., 2006, “Dynamic Stabilization in Addition to Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Degenerative Spondylolisthesis,” Spine, 31(4), pp. 442–449. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Stoll, T. M., Dubois, G., and Schwarzenbach, O., 2002, “The Dynamic Neutralization System for the Spine: A Multi-Center Study of a Novel Non-Fusion System,” Eur. Spine J, 11(Suppl 2), pp. S170–S178. [PubMed]
Welch, W. C., Cheng, B. C., Awad, T. E., Davis, R., Maxwell, J. H., Delamarter, R., Wingate, J. K., Sherman, J., and Macenski, M. M., 2007, “Clinical Outcomes of the Dynesys Dynamic Neutralization System: 1-Year Preliminary Results,” Neurosurg. Focus, 22(1), p. E8. [CrossRef]
Wu, J.-C., Huang, W.-C., Tsai, H.-W., Ko, C.-C., Wu, C.-L., Tu, T.-H., and Cheng, H., 2011, “Pedicle Screw Loosening in Dynamic Stabilization: Incidence, Risk, and Outcome in 126 Patients,” Neurosurg. Focus, 31(4), p. E9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Würgler-Hauri, C. C., Kalbarczyk, A., Wiesli, M., Landolt, H., and Fandino, J., 2008, “Dynamic Neutralization of the Lumbar Spine After Microsurgical Decompression in Acquired Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Segmental Instability,” Spine, 33(3), pp. E66–E72. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Meyers, K., Tauber, M., Sudin, Y., Fleischer, S., Arnin, U., Girardi, F., and Wright, T., 2008, “Use of Instrumented Pedicle Screws to Evaluate Load Sharing in Posterior Dynamic Stabilization Systems,” Spine J., 8(6), pp. 926–932. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bozkus, H., Senoglu, M., Baek, S., Sawa, A. G., Ozer, A. F., Sonntag, V. K., and Crawford, N. R., 2010, “Dynamic Lumbar Pedicle Screw-Rod Stabilization: In vitro Biomechanical Comparison With Standard Rigid Pedicle Screw-Rod Stabilization,” J. Neurosurg. Spine, 12(2), pp. 183–189. [CrossRef] [PubMed]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Maximum von Mises stresses in pedicle screws (in MPa)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Motion values in degrees at (a) the superior adjacent segment (L3-L4) and (b) the inferior adjacent segment (L5-S1) in intact, destabilized, and implanted models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Average ROM (in degrees) for intact, destabilized and destabilized + instrumentation models at L4-L5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Hybrid bending moment for surgery cases compared to intact (10Nm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) dynamic rod and (b) hinged (dynamic) screw

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Three-dimensional, nonlinear finite element model (L1-S1) with instrumentation




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In