Biomechanical effect after Coflex and Coflex rivet implantation for segmental instability at surgical and adjacent segments: a finite element analysis

被引:40
作者
Lo, Cheng-Chan [1 ]
Tsai, Kai-Jow [2 ]
Chen, Shih-Hao [3 ]
Zhong, Zheng-Cheng [4 ]
Hung, Chinghua [1 ]
机构
[1] Natl Chiao Tung Univ, Dept Mech Engn, Hsinchu, Taiwan
[2] Cathay Gen Hosp, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Taipei, Taiwan
[3] Tzu Chi Gen Hosp, Dept Orthopaed, Taichung, Taiwan
[4] Natl Yang Ming Univ, Dept Phys Therapy & Assist Technol, Taipei 112, Taiwan
关键词
lumbar spinal stenosis; interspinous process device; Coflex rivet follower load; disc annulus stress; finite element analysis; LUMBAR SPINE; FUSION; STENOSIS;
D O I
10.1080/10255842.2010.502894
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
080201 [机械制造及其自动化];
摘要
The Coflex device may provide stability to the surgical segment in extension but does not restore stability in other motion. Recently, a modified version called the Coflex rivet has been developed. The effects of Coflex and Coflex rivet implantation on the adjacent segments are still not clear; therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the biomechanical differences between Coflex and Coflex rivet implantation by using finite element analyses. The results show that the Coflex implantation can provide stability in extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation at the surgical segment, and it had no influence at adjacent segments except for extension. The Coflex rivet implantation can provide stability in all motions and reduce disc annulus stress at the surgical segment. Therefore, the higher range of motion and stress induced by the Coflex rivet at both adjacent discs may result in adjacent segment degeneration in flexion and extension.
引用
收藏
页码:969 / 978
页数:10
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]
Arbit E, 2001, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P137
[2]
Chen CS, 2001, MED ENG PHYS, V23, P483
[3]
Biomechanical comparison between lumbar disc arthroplasty and fusion [J].
Chen, Shih-Hao ;
Zhong, Zheng-Cheng ;
Chen, Chen-Sheng ;
Chen, Wen-Jer ;
Hung, Chinghua .
MEDICAL ENGINEERING & PHYSICS, 2009, 31 (02) :244-253
[4]
Cho KS, 2005, CLIN OUTCOME INTERSP
[5]
Dynamic interspinous process technology [J].
Christie, SD ;
Song, JK ;
Fessler, RG .
SPINE, 2005, 30 (16) :S73-S78
[6]
Eberlein R., 2001, COMPUT METHOD BIOMEC, V4, P209, DOI [10.1080/10255840108908005, DOI 10.1080/10255840108908005]
[7]
Eif M, 2005, INTERSPINOUS U INDIC
[8]
Kaech DL, 2002, SPINAL RESTABILIZATION PROCEDURES: DIAGNOSTIC AND THERAPEUTIC ASPECTS OF INTERVERTEBRAL FUSION CAGES, ARTIFICIAL DISCS AND MOBILE IMPLANTS, P355
[9]
Can a modified interspinous spacer prevent instability in axial rotation and lateral bending? A biomechanical in vitro study resulting in a new idea [J].
Kettler, A. ;
Drumm, J. ;
Heuer, F. ;
Haeussler, K. ;
Mack, C. ;
Claes, L. ;
Wilke, H. -J. .
CLINICAL BIOMECHANICS, 2008, 23 (02) :242-247
[10]
One-year outcome evaluation after interspinous implantation for degenerative spinal stenosis with segmental instability [J].
Kong, Doo-Sik ;
Kim, Eun-Sang ;
Eoh, Whan .
JOURNAL OF KOREAN MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2007, 22 (02) :330-335