StabilimaxNZ® versus simulated fusion: evaluation of adjacent-level effects
- 9 October 2007
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in European Spine Journal
- Vol. 16 (12), 2159-2165
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0444-5
Abstract
Rationale behind motion preservation devices is to eliminate the accelerated adjacent-level effects (ALE) associated with spinal fusion. We evaluated multidirectional flexibilities and ALEs of StabilimaxNZ® and simulated fusion applied to a decompressed spine. StabilimaxNZ® was applied at L4–L5 after creating a decompression (laminectomy of L4 plus bilateral medial facetectomy at L4–L5). Multidirectional Flexibility and Hybrid tests were performed on six fresh cadaveric human specimens (T12–S1). Decompression increased average flexion–extension rotation to 124.0% of the intact. StabilimaxNZ® and simulated fusion decreased the motion to 62.4 and 23.8% of intact, respectively. In lateral bending, corresponding increase was 121.6% and decreases were 57.5 and 11.9%. In torsion, corresponding increase was 132.7%, and decreases were 36.3% for fusion, and none for StabilimaxNZ® ALE was defined as percentage increase over the intact. The ALE at L3–4 was 15.3% for StabilimaxNZ® versus 33.4% for fusion, while at L5–S1 the ALE were 5.0% vs. 11.3%, respectively. In lateral bending, the corresponding ALE values were 3.0% vs. 19.1%, and 11.3% vs. 35.8%, respectively. In torsion, the corresponding values were 3.7% vs. 20.6%, and 4.0% vs. 33.5%, respectively. In conclusion, this in vitro study using Flexibility and Hybrid test methods showed that StabilimaxNZ® stabilized the decompressed spinal level effectively in sagittal and frontal planes, while allowing a good portion of the normal rotation, and concurrently it did not produce significant ALEs as compared to the fusion. However, it did not stabilize the decompressed specimen in torsion.Keywords
This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- Hybrid multidirectional test method to evaluate spinal adjacent-level effectsClinical Biomechanics, 2007
- Biomechanical analysis of a newly designed bioabsorbable anterior cervical plateJournal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 2005
- Adjacent Level Intradiscal Pressure and Segmental Kinematics Following A Cervical Total Disc ArthroplastySpine, 2005
- Multidirectional flexibility analysis of cervical artificial disc reconstruction: in vitro human cadaveric spine modelJournal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 2005
- A Retrospective Radiographic Analysis of Subaxial Sagittal Alignment After Posterior C1–C2 FusionSpine, 2004
- Estimates and Patterns of Direct Health Care Expenditures Among Individuals With Back Pain in the United StatesSpine, 2004
- Effect of compressive follower preload on the flexion–extension response of the human lumbar spineJournal of Orthopaedic Research, 2003
- Biomechanical Evaluation of Lumbosacral Reconstruction Techniques for SpondylolisthesisSpine, 2002
- Lumbar Motion Segment Pathology Adjacent to Thoracolumbar, Lumbar, and Lumbosacral FusionsSpine, 1996
- Biomechanical Evaluation of Lumbar Spinal Stability After Graded FacetectomiesSpine, 1990