Finite element simulation and clinical follow-up of lumbar spine biomechanics with dynamic fixations

Yolanda Más; Luis Gracia; Elena Ibarz; Sergio Gabarre; Diego Peña; Antonio Herrera

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0188328

Abstract

Arthrodesis is a recommended treatment in advanced stages of degenerative disc disease. Despite dynamic fixations were designed to prevent abnormal motions with better physiological load transmission, improving lumbar pain and reducing stress on adjacent segments, contradictory results have been obtained. This study was designed to compare differences in the biomechanical behaviour between the healthy lumbar spine and the spine with DYNESYS and DIAM fixation, respectively, at L4-L5 level. Behaviour under flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation are compared using healthy lumbar spine as reference. Three 3D finite element models of lumbar spine (healthy, DYNESYS and DIAM implemented, respectively) were developed, together a clinical follow-up of 58 patients operated on for degenerative disc disease. DYNESYS produced higher variations of motion with a maximum value for lateral bending, decreasing intradiscal pressure and facet joint forces at instrumented level, whereas screw insertion zones concentrated stress. DIAM increased movement during flexion, decreased it in another three movements, and produced stress concentration at the apophyses at instrumented level. Dynamic systems, used as single systems without vertebral fusion, could be a good alternative to degenerative disc disease for grade II and grade III of Pfirrmann.

Citation: Más Y, Gracia L, Ibarz E, Gabarre S, Peña D, Herrera A (2017) Finite element simulation and clinical follow-up of lumbar spine biomechanics with dynamic fixations. PLoS ONE 12(11): e0188328. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188328

Editor: Dragana Nikitovic, University of Crete, GREECE

Received: August 2, 2017; Accepted: November 3, 2017; Published: November 29, 2017

Copyright: © 2017 Más et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Abbreviations: 3D, Three-Dimensional; DDD, Degenerative disc disease; MRI, Magnetic Resonance Imaging; ALIF, Anterior lumbar interbody fusion; PLIF, Postero-lumbar interbody fusion; TLIF, Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; XLIF, lateral lumbar interbody fusion; ASD, Adjacent Segment Disease; DD, Disc Degeneration; TRD, Total disc replacement; DF, Dynamic fixation; DIAM, Device for intervertebral assisted motion; ROM, Range of motion; FE, Finite element; PEEK, Polyether ether ketone; PCU, Polycarbonate-urethane; PET, Polyethylene-terephthalate; IDP, Interdiscal Pressure; L1, First lumbar vertebrae; L2, Second lumbar vertebrae; L3, Third lumbar vertebrae; L4, Fourth lumbar vertebrae; L5, Fifth lumbar vertebrae; S1, First sacral vertebrae; SASD, Symptomatic Adjacent Segment Disease; RASD, Radiographic Adjacent Segment Disease

Introduction

A lot of patients suffer low back pain in some of them with chronic evolution. Lumbar pain can have multiple etiologies, in some cases unidentified. One of the most prevalent etiologies of lumbar pain is degenerative disc disease (DDD) [1]. The etiology of DDD is multifactorial, in its production they influence, among other: the age, sedentary lifestyle, toxic habits, obesity [2], loads supported [3] which in addition can activate the inflammatory and enzymatic processes which play an important role in the degeneration [4–6] movements during flexion [7] and the genetics of each individual [8, 9], with particular relevance of the genetic polymorphisms [10, 11].

Most patients exhibit grades IV and V of Pfirrmann [12] in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and evident signs of facet arthrosis leaving instability as the only remaining aspect to improve with surgical treatment.

Lumbar spinal fusion is a standardized and widely accepted procedure for the treatment of discogenic back pain, showing good results in the long term. It can be achieved through anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), postero-lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), lateral lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF), non-instrumented posterolateral fusion and circumferential interbody fusion by double approach (anterior and posterior).

The question which remains is if adjacent segment disease (ASD) is produced by age-related degeneration or if it is a consequence of the previous fusion. [13]. As it has been reported, ASD has a multifactorial etiology [13–17]. In order to avoid or minimize the occurrence of ASD, several alternative techniques in the treatment of disc degeneration (DD) have emerged including: arthroplasty of facet joints [18], total disc replacement (TDR) and dynamic fixation (DF). Nowadays, DF is the most used among these techniques.

Dynamic fixations can be used as a surgical treatment system for degenerative disc disease or as a hybrid system, combined with circumferential fusion, to reduce a further progression of degeneration in the adjacent discs to fusion [19–21]. During last years, the two most employed systems are: the DIAM fixator (Device for Intervertebral Assisted Motion) [22], used as an interspinous spacer and the dynamic neutralization system (DYNESYS) [21], although nowadays Dynesys continues being used and the use of interspinous spacers has diminished, including DIAM.

Although in vitro and clinical studies in the mid-term reported good results using DIAM [23, 24] together with a lower incidence of ASD [25], it presented a high rate of revision surgery due to either the loosening or fracture of the interspinous apophyses [26]. Regarding the DYNESYS system, some follow-up studies have reported evident clinical improvement in patients [21, 27].

The biomechanical analysis of the wide variety of fixations can be developed through in vitro and in vivo testing and through finite element (FE) simulations. Concerning in vitro tests, some authors have studied rigid and semi-rigid implants: Wallis, DYNESYS, Locker implant and pedicle screw rod [28, 29], in terms of range of motion (ROM) and at different levels of fixation [30]. Regarding in vivo studies, clinical outcome was evaluated for DIAM dynamic stabilization with successful results in ROM and intervertebral fusion [31]. Several FE studies have been developed to study the effect of implant positioning [32], different flexible implants (FlexPLUS, DSS, DYNESYS, NFlex and PEEK, Awesome Rod System) and rigid fixations evaluating ROM in the four principal movements [33–37], the effect of pre compression level, tension at the screws [38, 39] and several other parameters: Young’s modulus, diameter of the cords, angular stiffness of head screws, etc [40]. The influence of the spacer diameter of DYNESYS on lumbar spine biomechanics was analyzed in a previous study [41].

Despite the number of studies published, contradictory results have been obtained for the different fixations. Thus, the aim of this work is to analyse and compare differences in the biomechanical behaviour between the healthy lumbar spine model and the two operated models with dynamic fixations at L4-L5 level, evaluating the efficiency of dynamic implants in terms of mobility recovery against the healthy spine, used as baseline, and verifying the influence on biomechanical behaviour of adjacent segments. With respect to previous works, the main contribution is the combination of FE study and clinical results in our patients operated with both systems, covering a total of 58 operated patients, with important low back pain, without clinical improvement after several months of conservative treatment, and with Pfirrmann II and III of disc degeneration [12], without instability or signs of vertebral arthrosis. The clinical study allowed verifying if the use of dynamic fixations is able to avoid or diminish the appearance of the ASD, in the non-operated intervertebral discs, which is one of the main reasons for the use of DF, completing and confirming, if possible, the results obtained by means of FE simulations. The present study refers to the use of dynamic fixation as single systems without vertebral fusion (not hybrid systems).

Material and methods

Computational simulations

The present work is based on a previous FE model [42] validated according to the four basic movements for a healthy spine (flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation). This model was used as a baseline to generate two new models of lumbar spine with arthrodesis using two types of dynamic fixation and thus compare results from simulations of healthy and implanted models (DYNESYS and DIAM, at L4-L5).

The DYNESYS system (Zimmer GmbH Warsaw, Indiana, USA) (Fig 1) has two cylindrical space bars made of Polycarbonate-urethane (Selene PCU) which fasten spinal segments towards anatomical position absorbing loads and controlling the spine through extension positions; a stabilizer cord made of Polyethylene-terephthalate (Selene PET) which under traction, compresses the space bar achieving the global stability of the whole implant; and for pedicle locking screws made of a Titanium-Aluminium-Niobium alloy (Ti-Al-Nb) (Protasul-100), which permit the fixation of the cord and enable the compression of the modular space bars.

Download:

Fig 1. Analyzed devices, their FE models and lateral and posterior view of the operated models.

(A) DYNESYS. (B) DIAM.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188328.g001

The DIAM Spinal Stabilization System (Medtronic, Minneapolis, USA) (Fig 1) consists of a silicone structure covered by a polyester H-shape mesh placed in between the spinous apophyses, acting as a shock absorber reducing loads at the vertebrae and serving as a flexible support for the lumbar spine through its degenerative process. It is fixed in position by two cords serving as bonds. The DIAM device was conceived to stabilize degenerations of spine segments without fusion surgery, maintaining the movement of the segments and preventing the degeneration of adjacent segments.

Three models, one for the healthy column and two with fixations were generated and meshed. Implants were meshed automatically with linear tetrahedra except for the cords and the space bars which were meshed with linear hexahedra. Thereafter, the positioning of each device on the healthy lumbar spine model was carried out. Concerning the DYNESYS model, screws were inserted in the perforations prepared during the initial stage, provided that interdiscal space had not been affected by disc degeneration. Respecting the DIAM model, device insertion was executed by posterior approach removing supraspinous ligament between L4 and L5 vertebrae to locate the DIAM device between the spinous apophyses. The final models with arthrodesis are shown in Fig 1.

The 3D FE model of the healthy lumbar spine consisted of 195726 elements. The statistics of the implanted models are shown in Tables 1 and 2. The final mesh sizes for the three models were obtained after performing a sensitivity analysis, refining the mesh in order to achieve a convergence towards a minimum of the potential energy, both for the whole model and for each of its components, with a tolerance of 1% between consecutive meshes.

Download:

Table 1. Number and type of elements of each component in the FE models with DYNESYS and DIAM, respectively.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188328.t001

Download:

Table 2. Material properties of every fixation component.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188328.t002

Regarding the model with DYNESYS, once pedicular screws were fixed, the length of the space bar was determined and the cord was inserted applying a pre-compression to simulate stretching with a value of 50 N (usual value in surgical practice). To this respect, the options Rebar and Initial Conditions in Abaqus [43] were used, allowing changing the pre-stress state during the subsequent equilibrating static analysis steps. Polyester laces placed at each side of the DIAM device were not modelled, as their restraint effect was included as a boundary condition.

For the DYNESYS model, tie constraints [43] were applied between the screws and the bone and the screws and the cords (i.e., perfectly bonded). Conversely, contact interaction was considered between the space bar and the cords (friction coefficient of 0.1) and the space bar and the screws (friction coefficient of 0.1). The DIAM model included contact interaction between the polyester mesh and the bone (friction coefficient of 0.2). Mechanical properties of biological tissues corresponded to those included in a previously published study [42]. DYNESYS components were made from the following materials: screws were made of Protasul 100 Ti-Al-Nb alloy, space bars were made of Poliethylene-terephthalate, and the cord of Poliethylene-terephthalate. Mechanical properties of the cord and space bar of the DYNESYS device were obtained by traction and compression tests, respectively, using an Instron Axial-Torsion Servohydraulic Fatigue Testing System (model 8874) at the Mechanical Engineering Lab of the University of Zaragoza. To prevent sliding, a set of load-displacement curves were obtained. A quasi-static traction test was performed with a displacement rate of 2 mm/min and an extension limit of 2 mm. The space bar was tested under a compression rate of 1 mm/min and 3 mm of compression limit. The stress and strain values obtained for the cord and space bar in the traction test and compression test are shown in Fig 2A and 2B, respectively. Regarding Interspinous fixation DIAM, it was made of Silicone core covered by polyester.

Download:

Fig 2. Experimental strain-stress curves for DYNESYS device.

(A) Cord. (B) Bar.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188328.g002

For the affected disc, in the models with DYNESYS and DIAM, mechanical properties according to Ibarz [44] were considered (equivalent to grade II or III of Pfirrmann [12], which corresponds to slightly affected vertebral endplates, in grade III, but without instability. This is in accordance with clinical recommendations for dynamic fixations.

The boundary conditions applied were the same in every model: movements at the sacrum wings were restrained, and a pure moment scenario as reported in [45] was considered. A unified moment of 7.5 Nm was applied at the central node on the top side of the vertebra L1 around the corresponding axes for flexion, extension and lateral bending, and a moment of 0.6 Nm for axial rotation. Those values are in accordance with the recommended ones for the lumbar spine in pathological conditions [40].

In order to analyse the angles formed by each vertebra with the sacrum in the four basic movements, the same technique described in [42] was used (Fig 3). Flexion and extension movements were analysed by measuring the angle between facet joints at the sagittal plane; lateral bending movement was analysed by measuring the angle between facet joints at the frontal plane. Finally, axial rotation movement was analysed by measuring the angle between facet joints at the coronal plane.

Download:

Fig 3. Geometrical references for relative movement calculation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188328.g003

Clinical study

A total of 58 patients were operated on for degenerative disc disease, 46 patients with a DIAM device and 12 patients with DYNESYS, all of whom were examined to know their evolution and the long-term results of surgical treatment. This study was authorized by the Ethics Committee of Aragon and all patients signed the corresponding informed consent. Both groups of patients were similar, in age and degree of disc degeneration.The inclusion criteria were:

Patients younger than 50 years
Persistent chronic low back pain after at least 6 months of conservative treatment
Pfirrmann Grade II or III of degenerative disc disease
No existence of facet osteoarthritis or instability
No previous surgery

The exclusion criteria were:

Patients older than 50 years
Pfirrmann Grade IV or V of Degenerative Disc Disease
Existence of facet osteoarthritis or instability
Previous surgeries

The study of patients operated with Dynesys was retrospective, the assessment of outcome was performed by an independent observer. The study of patients operated with DIAM was prospective.

Results

Results of computational simulations

Concerning the results of FE simulations, the mobility values shown in Fig 4 were obtained. Regarding flexion, Fig 4A shows similar behaviour between the healthy and interspinous device model along all the vertebrae. The DYNESYS device model was not as stiff as the healthy one yielding to a greater global movement.

Download:

Fig 4. Results of the movement angle at each vertebra.

(A) Flexion. (B) Extension. (C) Lateral bending. (D) Axial rotation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188328.g004

In extension movement (Fig 4B), the DYNESYS device provided a higher movement as pre compression of the cord favoured this type movement whereas for the interspinous model a higher mobility was developed at superior segments (L1 and L2).

Regarding lateral bending movement in undeformed and deformed shapes, the DYNESYS model had a marked higher movement compared to the other models. The interspinous model gave a similar ROM to the healthy one (Fig 4C).

Concerning rotation axial movement (Fig 4D), lower amplitude was observed compared to previous movements. The healthy and DIAM model had a similar ROM again with the range being more reduced for the DYNESYS model.

Table 3 summarises all the results concerning the implanted models compared with the healthy model. The DIAM device produced, in general, smaller variations in degree of movement compared to DYNESYS, exhibiting minimal variations for axial rotation (+0.10/+0.78%) and lateral bending (-0.48/-4.59%). In extension it increased +13.35% with respect to the healthy model reaching a maximum variation for flexion (-32.65%) where all variations were negative as in lateral bending. Consequently, movement compared to the healthy model was limited. Conversely, DIAM increased movement along all the vertebrae during extension. Vertebra L5 (1.86%) had the smallest variation, corresponding to the movement of extension, whereas L4 (-32.65%) was the most altered one, in the movement of flexion.

Download:

Table 3. Variations of the degree of movement compared to healthy model through the four movements simulated (% of relative rotation between vertebrae).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188328.t003

Compared to the healthy model, the DYNESYS device produced higher variations in the degree of motion, reaching a maximum value during lateral bending. Flexion and extension produced the same range of variations. The same range of percentages is reached for rotation movement. In summary, vertebra L4 (10.94%) was the least altered, occurring in the movement of extension, whereas L3 (190.86%) experimented the highest variation, corresponding to lateral bending.

Interdiscal pressure (IDP) was measured as compressive stresses (minimum principal stress) at the instrumented and adjacent levels (Fig 5). During flexion, DYNESYS decreased IDP mainly at the instrumented level (L4-L5) and slightly at the upper level (L3-L4) whereas it slightly increased IDP at the lower level (L5-S1). Conversely, with the DIAM device IDP remained stable at every level (Fig 5A). In extension, DYNESYS increased IDP at the lower level (L5-S1) without producing any changes to the rest of discs, while IDP continued to be stable with DIAM at every level (Fig 5B). In lateral bending, IDP decreased at the instrumented level but increased in adjacent discs with DYNESYS, whilst remaining stable with DIAM at every level (Fig 5C). Finally, in axial rotation, IDP decreased at the instrumented and lower level and increased in the upper disc with DYNESYS, whereas a slight discharge was produced at every level with DIAM (Fig 5D).

Download:

Fig 5. Compression stress maps in discs L3- L4 and L5-S1 for healthy, DYNESYS and DIAM models.

(A) Flexion. (B) Extension. (C) Lateral bending. (D) Axial rotation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188328.g005

Results concerning the simulated movements are post processed at L3-L4-L5 in terms of von Mises stress, as Fig 6 shows. Depending on the fixation used, maximum values were concentrated at the location of the fixations: the DYNESYS implant at the screw insertions in contrast to the DIAM at the apophyses. The von Mises criterion was used for comparison purposes only, and it cannot be used as failure criterion for bone, which has a brittle behavior.

In flexion movement (Fig 6A) the DYNESYS implant produced higher stress concentrations at the screw insertions at L4-L5 particularly at vertebra L4. L3 was discharged which is related with the onset of screw loosening. The DIAM implant developed a similar behaviour to the healthy model but overloading the apophyses of L4.

Download:

Fig 6. Von Mises stress maps in vertebras L3, L4 and L5 for healthy, DYNESYS and DIAM models.

(A) Flexion. (B) Extension. (C) Lateral bending. (D) Axial rotation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188328.g006

Regarding extension movement (Fig 6B), DYNESYS showed a high stress rate at the insertion screws of L4 while L3 remained almost unloaded. The DIAM implant overloaded both L4 and L5, a stress concentration is observed at the apophyses of L4 vertebra.

During lateral bending (Fig 6C), the DIAM device transmitted loads mainly through the apophyses of L4. In relation to DYNESYS, L4 and L5 had a similar stress distribution to the healthy model, except at the screw insertions where a concentration appears again. L3 had a noticeable increase of stress compared to the healthy model, with a different distribution and higher values near to the back vertebral body.

Axial rotation discharged L4 and L5 in the DYNESYS model while this movement overloaded the apophyses of L3 and L4. The DIAM device exhibited a similar distribution to the healthy model, except at the apophyses of L4 which exhibited a stress concentration and at L3 where a slight decrease was observed (Fig 6D).

Results of clinical study

DIAM.

Between the years 2012 and 2016, 46 patients were operated on, 3 of them with a double device in L4-L5 and L5-S1. The ages range from 26–43 years with an average of 35.7 years. The follow-up time ranges from 5 years to 8 months with an average of 3.4 years.

Three of them have been reoperated due to persistent low back pain despite conservative treatment. Two at the two-year DIAM placement and another at 14 months, all were treated with lumbar arthrodesis. Of the remaining 43 patients, 6 had lumbar pain and were treated by rhizolysis, and the symptomatology disappeared. The remaining 37 patients (80.43%) were asymptomatic. We have not had any breakage of spinous apophyses nor any displacement of the device. There are no clinical or radiographic signs of ASD in the adjacent segments.

DYNESYS.

We reviewed 12 patients operated between 2007 and 2010, ranging in age from 28–41 years with an average of 38.3 years. The follow-up time ranges from 10 years to 6.6 years with an average of 8.3 years. Of these 12 patients, 7 are asymptomatic (58.33%), 3 were arthrodesed, 2 of them at 5 years of Dynesys placement and 1 at one year, while the remaining two patients underwent rhizolysis to treat their low back pain, with improvement, only having some occasional discomfort.

We have not detected any pulling of the screws, or breakage of the material. There are no clinical or radiographic signs of ASD in the adjacent segments.

Discussion

The incidence of clinically symptomatic adjacent segment disease (SASD) is lower compared to radiographic adjacent segment disease (RASD), because radiographic changes in adjacent segments do not necessarily imply functional impairment in patients with Arthrodesis [46].

The incidence of SASD ranging between 2% and 36% [46] and its treatment represents a serious problem, especially in young patients. The stiffness of the implant and the number of fixed segments in lumbar fusion has been associated with an increased incidence of ASD [47]. Nevertheless, fusion produces a significant increase in stress of the adjacent segments, particularly in the facet joints which is considered to provoke a degenerative cumulative process leading to ASD [48].

So as to avoid or minimize the occurrence of ASD, dynamic fixation systems have emerged, becoming a popular alternative to arthrodesis in the treatment of degenerative disc disease. DF reduces IDP at the instrumented levels by unloading the discs [49]. Consequently, an improvement is obtained on the MRI images of the degenerated disc by increasing the proportion of glycosaminoglycans [27].

Dynamic fixations were designed to prevent abnormal motions, yielding to a better physiological load transmission. Posterior motion-sparing devices intend to off-load facet joints and fibrous annulus enabling the damaged discs to repair themselves [50] if the degenerative process is not very advanced. They improve lumbar pain and reduce the stress on adjacent segments. Computational biomechanical research has confirmed that dynamic systems protect adjacent levels from excessive motion [51]. However, other authors consider this technique to produce a high rate (19%) of revision surgeries and low clinical improvement (only 67%) [52].

Our research group has long and mid-term experience with DF (DYNESYS and DIAM) for the treatment of degenerative disc disease localized at L4-L5 level. Important clinical symptoms and clear signs of disc degeneration were confirmed by MRI, but without instability or degeneration of the facet joints in young and active patients. As floating fusion entails a high risk for ASD [53], this technique is considered to be a good alternative.

The four principal movements were simulated. ROM was different in both systems. Both devices allowed motion at L4-L5 level (instrumented level) in flexion without variations in amplitude compared to the healthy spine; in extension, both systems limited mobility, a greater percentage with DIAM; in lateral bending, DYNESYS increased the mobility and DIAM did not produce any variation; finally, in axial rotation, DIAM^TM did not alter the range of motion and DYNESYS decreased it by 25%.

Concerning the rest of the segments, the results of the ROM with DYNESYS are in agreement with previous reports [30, 54]; it must be considered that the ROM with DYNESYS may vary in relation to the cord pretension [39], length and diameter of the spacer [41]. The results obtained in the present study with DIAM are in agreement with other works [22].

With respect to the stresses, although neither fixation device produced a significant rise on adjacent vertebrae, they both generated stress concentrations at their locations. Therefore, DYNESYS underwent this increase at the insertion zones of the screws, according to a previous study [54]; the stress concentration can provoke the pull-out of the screws in the medium or long term [21]. The obtained results showed the insertions at vertebra L4 as the most loaded whereas vertebra L3 was discharged, suggesting possible problems related to screw loosening at this level. In our clinical experience, we have not observed any pulling or loosening of the screws.

The DIAM device increased the stresses at the spinous apophyses of the instrumented level. This complication, already described [26], can cause its own fracture. In the 46 operated cases we did not suffer any fracture of the spinous apophyses, although we must consider the follow-up time is not especially long.

The obtained results are in accordance with Wu [26], exhibiting peak stress values at the apophyses of L4 during extension, flexion and lateral bending above all. As a result vertebra L4 remained as the most loaded one. Neither significant increase in mobility in the L5-S1 level nor an increase on the stress were found, considering that a dynamic fixation floating was simulated, like those of our clinical cases.

In the movement of flexion, DIAM and the healthy model developed similar stress maps whereas DYNESYS exhibited the maximum values amongst the three models at the insertion points of L4. During lateral bending the highest range of stresses occurred, where the DIAM model had a very similar stress distribution to the healthy model and the DYNESYS model remained almost discharged. Conversely, the minimum stress values were obtained for axial rotation with the DIAM model exhibiting lower stresses.

Results for IDP are in good agreement with previous published results: DYNESYS decreased IDP at the instrumented level and the facet joint forces at implant level [34] with no significant changes in IDP seen in the adjacent discs [20]. Regarding DIAM, contradictory published results have reported: a decrease in IDP at instrumented level and adjacent discs [48], a decrease in IDP at instrumented level with no significant changes in the IDP at the adjacent levels [55], and only a decrease in IDP during extension at the instrumented level [56]. Nonetheless, a recent paper has published a rise in IDP and the facet load in adjacent segment with an important stress at the bone-implant interface, similar to the findings in the present work [54]. IDP decrease and the stabilization of the stresses on adjacent vertebrae is a positive factor in avoiding the appearance of ASD.

The obtained results did not detect a stress increase on the adjacent segments, which is in accordance with the published evidence where no incidence was observed on ASD after the implantation of dynamic systems. In the same way, our results through FE simulation confirmed a decrease in IDP without any variations in the adjacent discs. In the clinical study we did not observe the presence of ASD in the adjacent discs, which is in favor of that there is no increase of IDP, although in the cases of DIAM the follow-up is short.

Concerning the increased mobility detected in the adjacent segments, particularly with DYNESYS, it does not appear to have clinical implications in the medium term taking into account the published results [21]. The mid-term results obtained by our group in the clinical follow-up were very satisfactory and we did not find hypermobility with displacement of adjacent vertebrae in any case, which is a major cause of ASD [47]. Our clinical results with the use of the DIAM, with 80.43% of asymptomatic patients and without presence of ASD in the adjacent discs, can be considered satisfactory, although more follow-up time is needed to reach definitive conclusions. The results with DYNESYS, with a longer follow-up time and smaller number of patients, are lower, with only 58.33% of asymptomatic patients. But, what is evident is that with both devices we have not detected ASD in the adjacent discs, which is one of the reasons for using dynamic fixations.

The obtained results show that the use of dynamic fixations as single systems without vertebral fusion, for low grades of disc degeneration (grades II and III of Pfirrmann), which corresponds to slightly affected vertebral endplates but without instability, is an advisable technique which can provide good results. Regardin the controversial published results, the results obtained in the present work are in accordance with the authors who consider both systems capable of maintaining the stability of the lumbar spine (DYNESYS [20, 54, 57–60] and DIAM [50, 61–63]).

Our clinical experimental results with DIAM are satisfactory whereas they were not as favorable with the use of DYNESYS, although the latter is considered to provide a more stable fixation. Nonetheless, the follow up period is not long enough to establish definitive conclusions. Both fixations have been used on young patients, and have made it possible to postpone the lumbar spine arthrodesis whenever necessary, as the definitive solution. Additionally, patients have been re-operated after several months of ineffective conservative treatments, recommending a dynamic fixation mainly because of their age.

The main limitations of this study derive from the small sample of patients and the short follow-up time, both of which need to be broadened. Nevertheless, there is a good correspondence between computational results and the absence of ASD in the radiologic controls of the patients.

Conclusions

The results obtained in the present work are in accordance with other authors who consider both systems (DYNESYS and DIAM) capable of maintaining the stability of the lumbar spine. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the DYNESYS system may have greater long-term stability, whilst also considering that its implementation requires a more aggressive surgery.

Accorfing to the obtained results, the dynamic systems anlyzed, used as single systems without vertebral fusion, could be an alternative for the treatment of degenerative disc disease for grade II and grade III of Pfirrmann. Their major advantage is the possibility they offer to execute a subsequent rigid fixation in case of the failure of the dynamic fixation. In any case, they make it possible to postpone the procedure of lumbar spine arthrodesis.

Ethical approval

The study “Tratamiento quirúrgico de la discopatía degenerativa de columna lumbar” has been approved by the Ethics Committee of The Institute of Health Sciences of Aragón (protocol number C.P. IACS 43/005-C.I. PI 07/65).

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Analyzed devices, their FE models and lateral and posterior view the operated models.

(A) DYNESYS. (B) DIAM.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188328.s001

(ZIP)

S2 Fig. Experimental strain-stress curves for DYNESYS device.

(A) Cord. (B) Bar.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188328.s002

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Geometrical references for relative movement calculation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188328.s003

(TIF)

S4 Fig.

A, B, C and D. Results of the movement angle at each vertebra. (A) Flexion. (B) Extension. (C) Lateral bending. (D) Axial rotation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188328.s004

(TIF)

S5 Fig.

A, B, C and D. Compression stress maps in discs L3- L4 and L5-S1 for healthy, DYNESYS and DIAM models (A) Flexion. (B) Extension. (C) Lateral bending. (D) Axial rotation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188328.s005

(TIF)

S6 Fig.

A, B, C and D. Von Mises stress maps in vertebras L3, L4 and L5 for healthy, DYNESYS and DIAM models. (A) Flexion. (B) Extension. (C) Lateral bending. (D) Axial rotation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188328.s006

(TIF)

S1 Table. Number and type of elements of each component in the FE models with DYNESYS and DIAM, respectively.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188328.s007

(TIF)

S2 Table. Material properties of every fixation component.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188328.s008

(TIF)

S3 Table. Variations of the degree of movement compared to healthy model through the four movements simulated (% of relative rotation between vertebrae).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188328.s009

(TIF)

References

1. Manchikanti L, Singh V, Datta S, Cohen SP, Hirsch JA, and American Society of Interventional Pain. Comprehensive review of epidemiology, scope, and impact of spinal pain. Pain Physician 2009;12:E35–70. pmid:19668291
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Kadow T, Sowa G, Vo N, Kang JD. Molecular basis of intervertebral disc degeneration and herniations: what are the important translational questions?.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jun;473(6):1903–12. Review. pmid:25024024
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Iatridis JC, MacLean JJ, Roughley PJ, Alini M. Effects of mechanical loading on intervertebral disc metabolism in vivo. Journal of Bone Joint Surgery Am 2006;88 Suppl 2:41–6.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
4. Vo NV, Hartman RA, Yurube T, Jacobs LJ, Sowa GA, Kang JD. Expression and regulation of metalloproteinases and their inhibitors in intervertebral disc aging and degeneration. Spine J. 2013 Mar;13(3):331–41. pmid:23369495
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Weber KT, Jacobsen TD, Maidhof R, Virojanapa J, Overby C, Bloom O, et al. Developments in intervertebral disc disease research: pathophysiology, mechanobiology, and therapeutics.Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2015 Mar;8(1):18–31. pmid:25694233
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Weber KT, Alipui DO, Sison CP, Bloom O, Quraishi S, Overby MC, et al. Serum levels of the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6 vary based on diagnoses in individuals with lumbar intervertebral disc diseases.Arthritis Res Ther. 2016 Jan 7;18:3. pmid:26743937
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Wong KCH, Lee RYW, Yeung SS. The association between back pain and trunk posture of workers in a special school for the severe handicaps. Bmc Musculoskeletal Disorders 2009;10.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
8. Battie MC, Videman T, Parent E. Lumbar disc degeneration: epidemiology and genetic influences. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29:2679–90.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
9. Battie MC, Videman T. Lumbar disc degeneration: epidemiology and genetics. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88 Suppl 2:3–9.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
10. Hemanta D, Jiang XX, Feng ZZ, Chen ZX, Cao YW. Etiology for Degenerative Disc Disease. Chin Med Sci J. 2016 Sep 20;31(3):185–191. pmid:27733227
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Rigal J, Léglise A, Barnetche T, Cogniet A, Aunoble S, Le Huec JC. Meta-analysis of the effects of genetic polymorphisms on intervertebral disc degeneration. Eur Spine J. 2017 Aug;26(8):2045–2052. pmid:28551829
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Sep 1;26(17):1873
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Song KJ, Choi BW, Jeon TS, Lee KB, Chang H. Adjacent segment degenerative disease: is it due to disease progression or a fusion-associated phenomenon? Comparison between segments adjacent to the fused and non-fused segments. European Spine Journal 2011;20:1940–1945. pmid:21656051
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Helgeson MD, Bevevino AJ, Hilibrand AS. Update on the evidence for adjacent segment degeneration and disease. Spine Journal 2013;13:342–351. pmid:23420004
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Liang JQ, Dong YL, Zhao H. Risk factors for predicting symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration requiring surgery in patients after posterior lumbar fusion. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 2014;9.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
16. Nakashima H, Kawakami N, Tsuji T, Ohara T, Suzuki Y, Saito T, et al. Adjacent Segment Disease after Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Based on Cases with a Minimum of 10 years of Follow-Up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015; 40(14):E831–41.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Kim HJ, Kang KT, Son J, Lee CK, Chang BS, Yeom JS. The influence of facet joint orientation and tropism on the stress at the adjacent segment after lumbar fusion surgery: a biomechanical analysis. Spine J 2015;15(8):1841–7. pmid:25817739
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Sjovold SG, Zhu Q, Bowden A, Larson CR, de Bakker PM, Villarraga ML, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of the Total Facet Arthroplasty System(R) (TFAS(R)): loading as compared to a rigid posterior instrumentation system. Eur Spine J 2012;21:1660–73. pmid:22407270
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Cheng BC, Gordon J, Cheng J, Welch WC. Immediate biomechanical effects of lumbar posterior dynamic stabilization above a circumferential fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:2551–7.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, Claes L, Wilke HJ. Influence of a dynamic stabilisation system on load bearing of a bridged disc: an in vitro study of intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J 2006;15:1276–85. pmid:16429291
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. European Spine Journal 2002;11: S170–S178. pmid:12384741
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Caserta S, La Maida GA, Misaggi B, Peroni D, Pietrabissa R, Raimondi MT, et al. Elastic stabilization alone or combined with rigid fusion in spinal surgery: a biomechanical study and clinical experience based on 82 cases. European Spine Journal 2002;11:S192–S197. pmid:12384744
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Lee CH, Hyun SJ, Kim KJ, Jahng TA, Yoon SH, Kim HJ. The efficacy of lumbar hybrid stabilization using the DIAM to delay adjacent segment degeneration: an intervention comparison study with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Neurosurgery 2013;73:ons224–31. pmid:23467248
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Hirscha C, Brequeb C. Ragotc S, Pascal-Mousselarda H, Richerd JP, Scepid M, et al. Biomechanical study of dynamic changes in L4-L5 foramen surface area in flexion and extension after implantation of four interspinous process devices. Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research 2015;101:215–219.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
25. Lu K, Liliang PC, Wang HK, Liang CL, Chen JS, Chen TB, et al. Reduction in adjacent-segment degeneration after multilevel posterior lumbar interbody fusion with proximal DIAM implantation. J Neurosurg Spine 2015:23(2):190–6. pmid:25932598
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Wu AM, Zhou Y, Li QL, Wu XL, Jin YL, Luo P, et al. Interspinous Spacer versus Traditional Decompressive Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Plos One 2014;9.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
27. Ciavarro C, Caiani EG, Brayda-Bruno M, Zerbi A, Galbusera F, Vaga S, et al. Mid-term evaluation of the effects of dynamic neutralization system on lumbar intervertebral discs using quantitative molecular MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012;35:1145–51. pmid:22128094
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Schulte TL, Hurschler C, Haversath M, Liljenqvist U, Bullmann V, Filler TJ, et al. The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants on the range of motion of lumbar motion segments after decompression. Eur Spine J 2008;17: 1057–65. pmid:18493802
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Shim CS, Park SW, Lee SH, Lim TJ, Chun K, Kim DH. Biomechanical evaluation of an interspinous stabilizing device, Locker. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:E820–7.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
30. Strube P, Tohtz S, Hoff E, Gross C, Perka C, Putzier M. Dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion: part I. Biomechanical effects on lumbar spinal motion. Eur Spine J 2010;19:2171–80. pmid:20683625
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Tae-Hoon R, Keung-Nyun K, Young-Min K, Dong-Kyu C, Seong Y, Yoon H, et al. Clinical and Radiological Outcome of an Interspinous Dynamic Stabilization System in Degenerative Lumbar Disease: 24 Cases with Over 24 Months of Follow-up. Korean Journal of Spine 2009;6(3):175–180.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. Anasetti F, Galbusera F, Aziz HN, Bellini CM, Addis A, Villa T, et al. Spine stability after implantation of an interspinous device: an in vitro and finite element biomechanical study. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;13:568–75. pmid:21039145
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Zander T, Rohlmann A, Burra NK, Bergmann G. Effect of a posterior dynamic implant adjacent to a rigid spinal fixator. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2006;21:767–74.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. Rohlmann A, Burra NK, Zander T, Bergmann G. Comparison of the effects of bilateral posterior dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis. Eur Spine J 2007;16:1223–31. pmid:17206401
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Jahng TA, Kim YE, Moon KY. Comparison of the biomechanical effect of pedicle-based dynamic stabilization: a study using finite element analysis. Spine Journal 2013;13: 85–94. pmid:23266148
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Chien CY, Kuo YJ, Lin SC, Chuang WH, Luh YP. Kinematic and mechanical comparisons of lumbar hybrid fixation using Dynesys and Cosmic systems. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014;39:E878–84.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
37. Chen CS, Huang CH, Shih SL. Biomechanical evaluation of a new pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilization device (Awesome Rod System)—a finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2015;16:81. pmid:25880231
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Galbusera F, Bellini CM, Anasetti F, Ciavarro C, Lovi A, Brayda-Bruno M. Rigid and flexible spinal stabilization devices: a biomechanical comparison. Med Eng Phys 2011;33:490–6. pmid:21177135
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Liu CL, Zhong ZC, Hsu HW, Shih SL, Wang ST, Hung C, et al. Effect of the cord pretension of the Dynesys dynamic stabilisation system on the biomechanics of the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis. European Spine Journal 2011;20:1850–1858. pmid:21523456
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Rohlmann A, Nabil Boustani H, Bergmann G, Zander T. Effect of a pedicle-screw-based motion preservation system on lumbar spine biomechanics: a probabilistic finite element study with subsequent sensitivity analysis. J Biomech 2010;43:2963–9. pmid:20696430
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Shih SL, Chen CS, Lin HM, Huang LY, Liu CL, Huang CH, et al. Effect of Spacer Diameter of the Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization System on the Biomechanics of the Lumbar Spine: A Finite Element Analysis. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 2012;25:E140–E149.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
42. Ibarz E, Herrera A, Más Y, Rodríguez-Vela J, Cegoñino J, Puértolas S, et al. Development and kinematic verification of a finite element model for the lumbar spine: application to disc degeneration. Biomed Res Int 2013;2013:705185. pmid:23509766
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Dassault systèmes, Abaqus 6.12. https://www.3ds.com.
44. Ibarz E, Más Y, Mateo J, Lobo-Escolar A, Herrera A, Gracia L, Instability of the lumbar spine due to disc degeneration. A finite element simulation. Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology 2013;4:547–556.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
45. Volkheimer D, Malakoutian M, Oxland TR, Wilke HJ. Limitations of current in vitro test protocols for investigation of instrumented adjacent segment biomechanics: critical analysis of the literature. European Spine Journal. September 2015, Volume 24, Issue 9, pp 1882–1892
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. Levin DA, Hale JJ, Bendo JA. Adjacent segment degeneration following spinal fusion for degenerative disc disease. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2007;65:29–36. pmid:17539759
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. Chou WY, Hsu CJ, Chang WN, Wong CY. Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal posterolateral fusion with instrumentation in elderly patients. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 2002;122:39–43. pmid:11995879
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Cegoñino J, Calvo-Echenique A, Pérez-Del Palomar A. Influence of different fusion techniques in lumbar spine over the adjacent segments: A 3D finite element study. J Orthop Res 2015;33:993–1000. pmid:25676778
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. Bellini CM, Galbusera F, Raimondi MT, Mineo GV, Brayda-Bruno M. Biomechanics of the lumbar spine after dynamic stabilization. J Spinal Disord Tech 2007;20:423–9. pmid:17970182
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
50. Minns RJ, Walsh WK. Preliminary design and experimental studies of a novel soft implant for correcting sagittal plane instability in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22: 1819–25
- View Article
- Google Scholar
51. Erbulut DU, Kiapour A, Oktenoglu T, Ozer AF, Goel VK. A computational biomechanical investigation of posterior dynamic instrumentation: combination of dynamic rod and hinged (dynamic) screw. J Biomech Eng 2014;136: 051007. pmid:24599026
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
52. Grob D, Benini A, Junge A, Mannion AF. Clinical experience with the Dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine: surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30: 324–31.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
53. Disch AC, Schmoelz W, Matziolis G, Schneider SV, Knop C, Putzier M. Higher risk of adjacent segment degeneration after floating fusions: long-term outcome after low lumbar spine fusions. J Spinal Disord Tech 2008;21:79–85. pmid:18391709
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
54. Liu CL, Zhong ZC, Shih SL, Hung CH, Lee YE, Chen CS. Influence of Dynesys System Screw Profile on Adjacent Segment and Screw. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 2010;23:410–417.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
55. Wilke HJ, Drumm J, Haeussler K, Mack C, Steudel WI, Kettler A. Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure. European Spine Journal 2008;17:1049–1056. pmid:18584219
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
56. Erbulut DU, Zafarparandeh I, Hassan CR, Lazoglu I, Ozer AF. Determination of the biomechanical effect of an interspinous process device on implanted and adjacent lumbar spinal segments using a hybrid testing protocol: a finite-element study. J Neurosurg Spine 2015;23(2):200–8. pmid:25932601
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
57. Wu H, Pang Q, Jiang G.Medium-term effects of Dynesys dynamic stabilization versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of multisegmental lumbar degenerative disease. J Int Med Res. 2017 Jan 1:300060517708104. [Epub ahead of print]
- View Article
- Google Scholar
58. Zhang C, Wang L, Hou T, Luo L, Zhao C, Gan Y, et al. The influence of L4-S1 Dynesys® dynamic stabilization versus fusion on lumbar motion and its relationship with lumbar degeneration: a retrospective study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2017 Jun 26;12(1):99. pmid:28651616
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
59. Liu K, Sun W, Lu Q, Chen J, Tang J.A cost-utility analysis of Dynesys dynamic stabilization versus instrumented fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases. J Orthop Sci. 2017 Aug 11. pii: S0949-2658(17)30185-9. [Epub ahead of print] pmid:28807742
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
60. Bredin S, Demay O, Mensa C, Madi K, Ohl X. Posterolateral fusion versus dynesys® dynamic stabilization: retrospective study at a minimum 5.5 years' follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017 Sep 20. pii: S1877-0568(17)30256-6. [Epub ahead of print] pmid:28942026
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
61. Buric J, Pulidori M, Sinan T, Mehraj S. DIAM device for low back pain in degenerative disc disease: 24 months follow-up. Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2011;108:177–82. pmid:21107955
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
62. Buric J, Pulidori M. Long-term reduction in pain and disability after surgery with the interspinous device for intervertebral assisted motion (DIAM) spinal stabilization system in patients with low back pain: 4-year follow-up from a longitudinal prospective case series. Eur Spine J. 2011 Aug;20(8):1304–11. Epub 2011 Jan 29. pmid:21279392
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
63. Krappel F, Brayda-Bruno M, Alessi G, Remacle JM, Lopez LA, Fernández JJ, et al. Herniectomy versus herniectomy with the DIAM spinal stabilization system in patients with sciatica and concomitant low back pain: results of a prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial. Eur Spine J. 2017 Mar;26(3):865–876. Epub 2016 Oct 4. pmid:27704286
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Manchikanti L, Singh V, Datta S, Cohen SP, Hirsch JA, and American Society of Interventional Pain. Comprehensive review of epidemiology, scope, and impact of spinal pain. Pain Physician 2009;12:E35–70. pmid:19668291
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Kadow T, Sowa G, Vo N, Kang JD. Molecular basis of intervertebral disc degeneration and herniations: what are the important translational questions?.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jun;473(6):1903–12. Review. pmid:25024024
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Iatridis JC, MacLean JJ, Roughley PJ, Alini M. Effects of mechanical loading on intervertebral disc metabolism in vivo. Journal of Bone Joint Surgery Am 2006;88 Suppl 2:41–6.
View Article
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Vo NV, Hartman RA, Yurube T, Jacobs LJ, Sowa GA, Kang JD. Expression and regulation of metalloproteinases and their inhibitors in intervertebral disc aging and degeneration. Spine J. 2013 Mar;13(3):331–41. pmid:23369495
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[13] View Article

[14] PubMed/NCBI

[15] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Weber KT, Jacobsen TD, Maidhof R, Virojanapa J, Overby C, Bloom O, et al. Developments in intervertebral disc disease research: pathophysiology, mechanobiology, and therapeutics.Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2015 Mar;8(1):18–31. pmid:25694233
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[17] View Article

[18] PubMed/NCBI

[19] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Weber KT, Alipui DO, Sison CP, Bloom O, Quraishi S, Overby MC, et al. Serum levels of the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6 vary based on diagnoses in individuals with lumbar intervertebral disc diseases.Arthritis Res Ther. 2016 Jan 7;18:3. pmid:26743937
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[21] View Article

[22] PubMed/NCBI

[23] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Wong KCH, Lee RYW, Yeung SS. The association between back pain and trunk posture of workers in a special school for the severe handicaps. Bmc Musculoskeletal Disorders 2009;10.
View Article
Google Scholar

[25] View Article

[26] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Battie MC, Videman T, Parent E. Lumbar disc degeneration: epidemiology and genetic influences. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29:2679–90.
View Article
Google Scholar

[28] View Article

[29] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Battie MC, Videman T. Lumbar disc degeneration: epidemiology and genetics. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88 Suppl 2:3–9.
View Article
Google Scholar

[31] View Article

[32] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Hemanta D, Jiang XX, Feng ZZ, Chen ZX, Cao YW. Etiology for Degenerative Disc Disease. Chin Med Sci J. 2016 Sep 20;31(3):185–191. pmid:27733227
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] PubMed/NCBI

[36] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Rigal J, Léglise A, Barnetche T, Cogniet A, Aunoble S, Le Huec JC. Meta-analysis of the effects of genetic polymorphisms on intervertebral disc degeneration. Eur Spine J. 2017 Aug;26(8):2045–2052. pmid:28551829
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] PubMed/NCBI

[40] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Sep 1;26(17):1873
View Article
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Song KJ, Choi BW, Jeon TS, Lee KB, Chang H. Adjacent segment degenerative disease: is it due to disease progression or a fusion-associated phenomenon? Comparison between segments adjacent to the fused and non-fused segments. European Spine Journal 2011;20:1940–1945. pmid:21656051
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[45] View Article

[46] PubMed/NCBI

[47] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Helgeson MD, Bevevino AJ, Hilibrand AS. Update on the evidence for adjacent segment degeneration and disease. Spine Journal 2013;13:342–351. pmid:23420004
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[49] View Article

[50] PubMed/NCBI

[51] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Liang JQ, Dong YL, Zhao H. Risk factors for predicting symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration requiring surgery in patients after posterior lumbar fusion. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 2014;9.
View Article
Google Scholar

[53] View Article

[54] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Nakashima H, Kawakami N, Tsuji T, Ohara T, Suzuki Y, Saito T, et al. Adjacent Segment Disease after Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Based on Cases with a Minimum of 10 years of Follow-Up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015; 40(14):E831–41.
View Article
Google Scholar

[56] View Article

[57] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Kim HJ, Kang KT, Son J, Lee CK, Chang BS, Yeom JS. The influence of facet joint orientation and tropism on the stress at the adjacent segment after lumbar fusion surgery: a biomechanical analysis. Spine J 2015;15(8):1841–7. pmid:25817739
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] PubMed/NCBI

[61] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Sjovold SG, Zhu Q, Bowden A, Larson CR, de Bakker PM, Villarraga ML, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of the Total Facet Arthroplasty System(R) (TFAS(R)): loading as compared to a rigid posterior instrumentation system. Eur Spine J 2012;21:1660–73. pmid:22407270
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[63] View Article

[64] PubMed/NCBI

[65] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Cheng BC, Gordon J, Cheng J, Welch WC. Immediate biomechanical effects of lumbar posterior dynamic stabilization above a circumferential fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:2551–7.
View Article
Google Scholar

[67] View Article

[68] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, Claes L, Wilke HJ. Influence of a dynamic stabilisation system on load bearing of a bridged disc: an in vitro study of intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J 2006;15:1276–85. pmid:16429291
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] PubMed/NCBI

[72] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. European Spine Journal 2002;11: S170–S178. pmid:12384741
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[74] View Article

[75] PubMed/NCBI

[76] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Caserta S, La Maida GA, Misaggi B, Peroni D, Pietrabissa R, Raimondi MT, et al. Elastic stabilization alone or combined with rigid fusion in spinal surgery: a biomechanical study and clinical experience based on 82 cases. European Spine Journal 2002;11:S192–S197. pmid:12384744
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[78] View Article

[79] PubMed/NCBI

[80] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Lee CH, Hyun SJ, Kim KJ, Jahng TA, Yoon SH, Kim HJ. The efficacy of lumbar hybrid stabilization using the DIAM to delay adjacent segment degeneration: an intervention comparison study with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Neurosurgery 2013;73:ons224–31. pmid:23467248
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[82] View Article

[83] PubMed/NCBI

[84] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Hirscha C, Brequeb C. Ragotc S, Pascal-Mousselarda H, Richerd JP, Scepid M, et al. Biomechanical study of dynamic changes in L4-L5 foramen surface area in flexion and extension after implantation of four interspinous process devices. Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research 2015;101:215–219.
View Article
Google Scholar

[86] View Article

[87] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Lu K, Liliang PC, Wang HK, Liang CL, Chen JS, Chen TB, et al. Reduction in adjacent-segment degeneration after multilevel posterior lumbar interbody fusion with proximal DIAM implantation. J Neurosurg Spine 2015:23(2):190–6. pmid:25932598
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[89] View Article

[90] PubMed/NCBI

[91] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Wu AM, Zhou Y, Li QL, Wu XL, Jin YL, Luo P, et al. Interspinous Spacer versus Traditional Decompressive Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Plos One 2014;9.
View Article
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Ciavarro C, Caiani EG, Brayda-Bruno M, Zerbi A, Galbusera F, Vaga S, et al. Mid-term evaluation of the effects of dynamic neutralization system on lumbar intervertebral discs using quantitative molecular MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012;35:1145–51. pmid:22128094
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[96] View Article

[97] PubMed/NCBI

[98] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Schulte TL, Hurschler C, Haversath M, Liljenqvist U, Bullmann V, Filler TJ, et al. The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants on the range of motion of lumbar motion segments after decompression. Eur Spine J 2008;17: 1057–65. pmid:18493802
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[100] View Article

[101] PubMed/NCBI

[102] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Shim CS, Park SW, Lee SH, Lim TJ, Chun K, Kim DH. Biomechanical evaluation of an interspinous stabilizing device, Locker. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:E820–7.
View Article
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Strube P, Tohtz S, Hoff E, Gross C, Perka C, Putzier M. Dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion: part I. Biomechanical effects on lumbar spinal motion. Eur Spine J 2010;19:2171–80. pmid:20683625
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[107] View Article

[108] PubMed/NCBI

[109] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Tae-Hoon R, Keung-Nyun K, Young-Min K, Dong-Kyu C, Seong Y, Yoon H, et al. Clinical and Radiological Outcome of an Interspinous Dynamic Stabilization System in Degenerative Lumbar Disease: 24 Cases with Over 24 Months of Follow-up. Korean Journal of Spine 2009;6(3):175–180.
View Article
Google Scholar

[111] View Article

[112] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Anasetti F, Galbusera F, Aziz HN, Bellini CM, Addis A, Villa T, et al. Spine stability after implantation of an interspinous device: an in vitro and finite element biomechanical study. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;13:568–75. pmid:21039145
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[114] View Article

[115] PubMed/NCBI

[116] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Zander T, Rohlmann A, Burra NK, Bergmann G. Effect of a posterior dynamic implant adjacent to a rigid spinal fixator. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2006;21:767–74.
View Article
Google Scholar

[118] View Article

[119] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Rohlmann A, Burra NK, Zander T, Bergmann G. Comparison of the effects of bilateral posterior dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis. Eur Spine J 2007;16:1223–31. pmid:17206401
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[121] View Article

[122] PubMed/NCBI

[123] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Jahng TA, Kim YE, Moon KY. Comparison of the biomechanical effect of pedicle-based dynamic stabilization: a study using finite element analysis. Spine Journal 2013;13: 85–94. pmid:23266148
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[125] View Article

[126] PubMed/NCBI

[127] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Chien CY, Kuo YJ, Lin SC, Chuang WH, Luh YP. Kinematic and mechanical comparisons of lumbar hybrid fixation using Dynesys and Cosmic systems. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014;39:E878–84.
View Article
Google Scholar

[129] View Article

[130] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Chen CS, Huang CH, Shih SL. Biomechanical evaluation of a new pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilization device (Awesome Rod System)—a finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2015;16:81. pmid:25880231
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[132] View Article

[133] PubMed/NCBI

[134] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Galbusera F, Bellini CM, Anasetti F, Ciavarro C, Lovi A, Brayda-Bruno M. Rigid and flexible spinal stabilization devices: a biomechanical comparison. Med Eng Phys 2011;33:490–6. pmid:21177135
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[136] View Article

[137] PubMed/NCBI

[138] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Liu CL, Zhong ZC, Hsu HW, Shih SL, Wang ST, Hung C, et al. Effect of the cord pretension of the Dynesys dynamic stabilisation system on the biomechanics of the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis. European Spine Journal 2011;20:1850–1858. pmid:21523456
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[140] View Article

[141] PubMed/NCBI

[142] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Rohlmann A, Nabil Boustani H, Bergmann G, Zander T. Effect of a pedicle-screw-based motion preservation system on lumbar spine biomechanics: a probabilistic finite element study with subsequent sensitivity analysis. J Biomech 2010;43:2963–9. pmid:20696430
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[144] View Article

[145] PubMed/NCBI

[146] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Shih SL, Chen CS, Lin HM, Huang LY, Liu CL, Huang CH, et al. Effect of Spacer Diameter of the Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization System on the Biomechanics of the Lumbar Spine: A Finite Element Analysis. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 2012;25:E140–E149.
View Article
Google Scholar

[148] View Article

[149] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Ibarz E, Herrera A, Más Y, Rodríguez-Vela J, Cegoñino J, Puértolas S, et al. Development and kinematic verification of a finite element model for the lumbar spine: application to disc degeneration. Biomed Res Int 2013;2013:705185. pmid:23509766
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[151] View Article

[152] PubMed/NCBI

[153] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Dassault systèmes, Abaqus 6.12. https://www.3ds.com.

[ref44] 44. Ibarz E, Más Y, Mateo J, Lobo-Escolar A, Herrera A, Gracia L, Instability of the lumbar spine due to disc degeneration. A finite element simulation. Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology 2013;4:547–556.
View Article
Google Scholar

[156] View Article

[157] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Volkheimer D, Malakoutian M, Oxland TR, Wilke HJ. Limitations of current in vitro test protocols for investigation of instrumented adjacent segment biomechanics: critical analysis of the literature. European Spine Journal. September 2015, Volume 24, Issue 9, pp 1882–1892
View Article
Google Scholar

[159] View Article

[160] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Levin DA, Hale JJ, Bendo JA. Adjacent segment degeneration following spinal fusion for degenerative disc disease. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2007;65:29–36. pmid:17539759
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[162] View Article

[163] PubMed/NCBI

[164] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Chou WY, Hsu CJ, Chang WN, Wong CY. Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal posterolateral fusion with instrumentation in elderly patients. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 2002;122:39–43. pmid:11995879
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[166] View Article

[167] PubMed/NCBI

[168] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Cegoñino J, Calvo-Echenique A, Pérez-Del Palomar A. Influence of different fusion techniques in lumbar spine over the adjacent segments: A 3D finite element study. J Orthop Res 2015;33:993–1000. pmid:25676778
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[170] View Article

[171] PubMed/NCBI

[172] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Bellini CM, Galbusera F, Raimondi MT, Mineo GV, Brayda-Bruno M. Biomechanics of the lumbar spine after dynamic stabilization. J Spinal Disord Tech 2007;20:423–9. pmid:17970182
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[174] View Article

[175] PubMed/NCBI

[176] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Minns RJ, Walsh WK. Preliminary design and experimental studies of a novel soft implant for correcting sagittal plane instability in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22: 1819–25
View Article
Google Scholar

[178] View Article

[179] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Erbulut DU, Kiapour A, Oktenoglu T, Ozer AF, Goel VK. A computational biomechanical investigation of posterior dynamic instrumentation: combination of dynamic rod and hinged (dynamic) screw. J Biomech Eng 2014;136: 051007. pmid:24599026
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[181] View Article

[182] PubMed/NCBI

[183] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Grob D, Benini A, Junge A, Mannion AF. Clinical experience with the Dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine: surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30: 324–31.
View Article
Google Scholar

[185] View Article

[186] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Disch AC, Schmoelz W, Matziolis G, Schneider SV, Knop C, Putzier M. Higher risk of adjacent segment degeneration after floating fusions: long-term outcome after low lumbar spine fusions. J Spinal Disord Tech 2008;21:79–85. pmid:18391709
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[188] View Article

[189] PubMed/NCBI

[190] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Liu CL, Zhong ZC, Shih SL, Hung CH, Lee YE, Chen CS. Influence of Dynesys System Screw Profile on Adjacent Segment and Screw. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 2010;23:410–417.
View Article
Google Scholar

[192] View Article

[193] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Wilke HJ, Drumm J, Haeussler K, Mack C, Steudel WI, Kettler A. Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure. European Spine Journal 2008;17:1049–1056. pmid:18584219
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[195] View Article

[196] PubMed/NCBI

[197] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Erbulut DU, Zafarparandeh I, Hassan CR, Lazoglu I, Ozer AF. Determination of the biomechanical effect of an interspinous process device on implanted and adjacent lumbar spinal segments using a hybrid testing protocol: a finite-element study. J Neurosurg Spine 2015;23(2):200–8. pmid:25932601
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[199] View Article

[200] PubMed/NCBI

[201] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Wu H, Pang Q, Jiang G.Medium-term effects of Dynesys dynamic stabilization versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of multisegmental lumbar degenerative disease. J Int Med Res. 2017 Jan 1:300060517708104. [Epub ahead of print]
View Article
Google Scholar

[203] View Article

[204] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Zhang C, Wang L, Hou T, Luo L, Zhao C, Gan Y, et al. The influence of L4-S1 Dynesys® dynamic stabilization versus fusion on lumbar motion and its relationship with lumbar degeneration: a retrospective study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2017 Jun 26;12(1):99. pmid:28651616
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[206] View Article

[207] PubMed/NCBI

[208] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Liu K, Sun W, Lu Q, Chen J, Tang J.A cost-utility analysis of Dynesys dynamic stabilization versus instrumented fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases. J Orthop Sci. 2017 Aug 11. pii: S0949-2658(17)30185-9. [Epub ahead of print] pmid:28807742
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[210] View Article

[211] PubMed/NCBI

[212] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Bredin S, Demay O, Mensa C, Madi K, Ohl X. Posterolateral fusion versus dynesys® dynamic stabilization: retrospective study at a minimum 5.5 years' follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017 Sep 20. pii: S1877-0568(17)30256-6. [Epub ahead of print] pmid:28942026
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[214] View Article

[215] PubMed/NCBI

[216] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. Buric J, Pulidori M, Sinan T, Mehraj S. DIAM device for low back pain in degenerative disc disease: 24 months follow-up. Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2011;108:177–82. pmid:21107955
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[218] View Article

[219] PubMed/NCBI

[220] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Buric J, Pulidori M. Long-term reduction in pain and disability after surgery with the interspinous device for intervertebral assisted motion (DIAM) spinal stabilization system in patients with low back pain: 4-year follow-up from a longitudinal prospective case series. Eur Spine J. 2011 Aug;20(8):1304–11. Epub 2011 Jan 29. pmid:21279392
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[222] View Article

[223] PubMed/NCBI

[224] Google Scholar

[ref63] 63. Krappel F, Brayda-Bruno M, Alessi G, Remacle JM, Lopez LA, Fernández JJ, et al. Herniectomy versus herniectomy with the DIAM spinal stabilization system in patients with sciatica and concomitant low back pain: results of a prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial. Eur Spine J. 2017 Mar;26(3):865–876. Epub 2016 Oct 4. pmid:27704286
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[226] View Article

[227] PubMed/NCBI

[228] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Material and methods

Computational simulations

Clinical study

Results

Results of computational simulations

Results of clinical study

DIAM.

DYNESYS.

Discussion

Conclusions

Ethical approval

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Analyzed devices, their FE models and lateral and posterior view the operated models.

S2 Fig. Experimental strain-stress curves for DYNESYS device.

S3 Fig. Geometrical references for relative movement calculation.

S4 Fig.

S5 Fig.

S6 Fig.

S1 Table. Number and type of elements of each component in the FE models with DYNESYS and DIAM, respectively.

S2 Table. Material properties of every fixation component.

S3 Table. Variations of the degree of movement compared to healthy model through the four movements simulated (% of relative rotation between vertebrae).

References