Hybrid Instrumentation in Lumbar Spinal Fusion

A Biomechanical Evaluation of Three Different Instrumentation Techniques

Peter Obid, Reza Danyali, Rebecca Kueny, Gerd Huber, Michael Reichl, Alexander Richter, Thomas Niemeyer, Michael Morlock, Klaus Püschel, Hüseyin Übeyli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

50 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Study Design: Ex vivo human cadaveric study. 

Objective: The development or progression of adjacent segment disease (ASD) after spine stabilization and fusion is a major problem in spine surgery. Apart from optimal balancing of the sagittal profile, dynamic instrumentation is often suggested to prevent or impede ASD. Hybrid instrumentation is used to gain stabilization while allowing motion to avoid hypermobility in the adjacent segment. In this biomechanical study, the effects of two different hybrid instrumentations on human cadaver spines were evaluated and compared with a rigid instrumentation. 

Methods: Eighteen human cadaver spines (T11-L5) were subdivided into three groups: rigid, dynamic, and hook comprising six spines each. Clinical parameters and initial mechanical characteristics were consistent among groups. All specimens received rigid fixation from L3-L5 followed by application of a free bending load of extension and flexion. The range of motion (ROM) for every segment was evaluated. For the rigid group, further rigid fixation from L1-L5 was applied. A dynamic Elaspine system (Spinelab AG, Winterthur, Switzerland) was applied from L1 to L3 for the dynamic group, and the hook group was instrumented with additional laminar hooks at L1-L3. ROM was then evaluated again. 

Results: There was no significant difference in ROM among the three instrumentation techniques. 

Conclusion: Based on this data, the intended advantage of a hybrid or dynamic instrumentation might not be achieved.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)47-53
Number of pages7
JournalGlobal Spine Journal
Volume7
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Spinal Fusion
Spine
Articular Range of Motion
Cadaver
Switzerland

Cite this

Obid, Peter ; Danyali, Reza ; Kueny, Rebecca ; Huber, Gerd ; Reichl, Michael ; Richter, Alexander ; Niemeyer, Thomas ; Morlock, Michael ; Püschel, Klaus ; Übeyli, Hüseyin. / Hybrid Instrumentation in Lumbar Spinal Fusion : A Biomechanical Evaluation of Three Different Instrumentation Techniques. In: Global Spine Journal. 2017 ; Vol. 7, No. 1. pp. 47-53.
@article{a0cbc69892f94fe8afbfcc07906ed198,
title = "Hybrid Instrumentation in Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Biomechanical Evaluation of Three Different Instrumentation Techniques",
abstract = "Study Design: Ex vivo human cadaveric study. Objective: The development or progression of adjacent segment disease (ASD) after spine stabilization and fusion is a major problem in spine surgery. Apart from optimal balancing of the sagittal profile, dynamic instrumentation is often suggested to prevent or impede ASD. Hybrid instrumentation is used to gain stabilization while allowing motion to avoid hypermobility in the adjacent segment. In this biomechanical study, the effects of two different hybrid instrumentations on human cadaver spines were evaluated and compared with a rigid instrumentation. Methods: Eighteen human cadaver spines (T11-L5) were subdivided into three groups: rigid, dynamic, and hook comprising six spines each. Clinical parameters and initial mechanical characteristics were consistent among groups. All specimens received rigid fixation from L3-L5 followed by application of a free bending load of extension and flexion. The range of motion (ROM) for every segment was evaluated. For the rigid group, further rigid fixation from L1-L5 was applied. A dynamic Elaspine system (Spinelab AG, Winterthur, Switzerland) was applied from L1 to L3 for the dynamic group, and the hook group was instrumented with additional laminar hooks at L1-L3. ROM was then evaluated again. Results: There was no significant difference in ROM among the three instrumentation techniques. Conclusion: Based on this data, the intended advantage of a hybrid or dynamic instrumentation might not be achieved.",
keywords = "adjacent segment disease, degenerative lumbar spine, dynamic stabilization, Elaspine, hybrid instrumentation, laminar hooks, lumbar fusion",
author = "Peter Obid and Reza Danyali and Rebecca Kueny and Gerd Huber and Michael Reichl and Alexander Richter and Thomas Niemeyer and Michael Morlock and Klaus P{\"u}schel and H{\"u}seyin {\"U}beyli",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1055/s-0036-1583945",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "47--53",
journal = "Global Spine Journal",
issn = "2192-5682",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "1",

}

Obid, P, Danyali, R, Kueny, R, Huber, G, Reichl, M, Richter, A, Niemeyer, T, Morlock, M, Püschel, K & Übeyli, H 2017, 'Hybrid Instrumentation in Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Biomechanical Evaluation of Three Different Instrumentation Techniques', Global Spine Journal, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 47-53. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1583945

Hybrid Instrumentation in Lumbar Spinal Fusion : A Biomechanical Evaluation of Three Different Instrumentation Techniques. / Obid, Peter; Danyali, Reza; Kueny, Rebecca; Huber, Gerd; Reichl, Michael; Richter, Alexander; Niemeyer, Thomas; Morlock, Michael; Püschel, Klaus; Übeyli, Hüseyin.

In: Global Spine Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1, 01.02.2017, p. 47-53.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hybrid Instrumentation in Lumbar Spinal Fusion

T2 - A Biomechanical Evaluation of Three Different Instrumentation Techniques

AU - Obid, Peter

AU - Danyali, Reza

AU - Kueny, Rebecca

AU - Huber, Gerd

AU - Reichl, Michael

AU - Richter, Alexander

AU - Niemeyer, Thomas

AU - Morlock, Michael

AU - Püschel, Klaus

AU - Übeyli, Hüseyin

PY - 2017/2/1

Y1 - 2017/2/1

N2 - Study Design: Ex vivo human cadaveric study. Objective: The development or progression of adjacent segment disease (ASD) after spine stabilization and fusion is a major problem in spine surgery. Apart from optimal balancing of the sagittal profile, dynamic instrumentation is often suggested to prevent or impede ASD. Hybrid instrumentation is used to gain stabilization while allowing motion to avoid hypermobility in the adjacent segment. In this biomechanical study, the effects of two different hybrid instrumentations on human cadaver spines were evaluated and compared with a rigid instrumentation. Methods: Eighteen human cadaver spines (T11-L5) were subdivided into three groups: rigid, dynamic, and hook comprising six spines each. Clinical parameters and initial mechanical characteristics were consistent among groups. All specimens received rigid fixation from L3-L5 followed by application of a free bending load of extension and flexion. The range of motion (ROM) for every segment was evaluated. For the rigid group, further rigid fixation from L1-L5 was applied. A dynamic Elaspine system (Spinelab AG, Winterthur, Switzerland) was applied from L1 to L3 for the dynamic group, and the hook group was instrumented with additional laminar hooks at L1-L3. ROM was then evaluated again. Results: There was no significant difference in ROM among the three instrumentation techniques. Conclusion: Based on this data, the intended advantage of a hybrid or dynamic instrumentation might not be achieved.

AB - Study Design: Ex vivo human cadaveric study. Objective: The development or progression of adjacent segment disease (ASD) after spine stabilization and fusion is a major problem in spine surgery. Apart from optimal balancing of the sagittal profile, dynamic instrumentation is often suggested to prevent or impede ASD. Hybrid instrumentation is used to gain stabilization while allowing motion to avoid hypermobility in the adjacent segment. In this biomechanical study, the effects of two different hybrid instrumentations on human cadaver spines were evaluated and compared with a rigid instrumentation. Methods: Eighteen human cadaver spines (T11-L5) were subdivided into three groups: rigid, dynamic, and hook comprising six spines each. Clinical parameters and initial mechanical characteristics were consistent among groups. All specimens received rigid fixation from L3-L5 followed by application of a free bending load of extension and flexion. The range of motion (ROM) for every segment was evaluated. For the rigid group, further rigid fixation from L1-L5 was applied. A dynamic Elaspine system (Spinelab AG, Winterthur, Switzerland) was applied from L1 to L3 for the dynamic group, and the hook group was instrumented with additional laminar hooks at L1-L3. ROM was then evaluated again. Results: There was no significant difference in ROM among the three instrumentation techniques. Conclusion: Based on this data, the intended advantage of a hybrid or dynamic instrumentation might not be achieved.

KW - adjacent segment disease

KW - degenerative lumbar spine

KW - dynamic stabilization

KW - Elaspine

KW - hybrid instrumentation

KW - laminar hooks

KW - lumbar fusion

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020797403&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1055/s-0036-1583945

DO - 10.1055/s-0036-1583945

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 47

EP - 53

JO - Global Spine Journal

JF - Global Spine Journal

SN - 2192-5682

IS - 1

ER -