Finite element modelling of hybrid stabilization systems for the human lumbar spine


Creative Commons License

Demir E., Eltes P., Castro A. P., Lacroix D., TOKTAŞ İ.

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, vol.234, no.12, pp.1409-1420, 2020 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 234 Issue: 12
  • Publication Date: 2020
  • Doi Number: 10.1177/0954411920946636
  • Journal Name: Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Aerospace Database, Agricultural & Environmental Science Database, Applied Science & Technology Source, Biotechnology Research Abstracts, Communication Abstracts, Compendex, EMBASE, INSPEC, MEDLINE, Metadex, Civil Engineering Abstracts
  • Page Numbers: pp.1409-1420
  • Keywords: finite element modelling, hybrid stabilization, intradiscal pressure, Lumbar spine, range of motion
  • Open Archive Collection: AVESIS Open Access Collection
  • Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University Affiliated: Yes

Abstract

Intersomatic fusion is a very popular treatment for spinal diseases associated with intervertebral disc degeneration. The effects of three different hybrid stabilization systems on both range of motion and intradiscal pressure were investigated, as there is no consensus in the literature about the efficiency of these systems. Finite element simulations were designed to predict the variations of range of motion and intradiscal pressure from intact to implanted situations. After hybrid stabilization system implantation, L4-L5 level did not lose its motion completely, while L5-S1 had no mobility as a consequence of disc removal and fusion process. BalanC hybrid stabilization system represented higher mobility at the index level, reduced intradiscal pressure of adjacent level, but caused to increment in range of motion by 20% under axial rotation. Higher tendency by 93% to the failure was also detected under axial rotation. Dynesys hybrid stabilization system represented more restricted motion than BalanC, and negligible effects to the adjacent level. B-DYN hybrid stabilization system was the most rigid one among all three systems. It reduced intradiscal pressure and range of motion at the adjacent level except from motion under axial rotation being increased by 13%. Fracture risk of B-DYN and Dynesys Transition Optima components was low when compared with BalanC. Mobility of the adjacent level around axial direction should be taken into account in case of implantation with BalanC and B-DYN systems, as well as on the development of new designs. Having these findings in mind, it is clear that hybrid systems need to be further tested, both clinically and numerically, before being considered for common use.