Kinematic and mechanical comparisons of lumbar hybrid fixation using dynesys and cosmic systems

Chen Ying Chien, Yi Jie Kuo, Shang Chih Lin, Wen Hsien Chuang, Yuan Ping Luh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study Design: The biomechanical effects of Dynesys and Cosmic fixators on transition and adjacent segments were evaluated usinag the finite-element method. Objective. This study investigated the load-transferring mechanisms of 2 dynamic fixators and the fixator-induced effects on the junctional problem of the adjacent segments. Summary of Background Data: The mobility and flexibility of Dynesys screw-spacer and Cosmic screw-hinge joints preserve motion and share loads for the transition segment. However, the differences in tissue responses and fixator mechanisms among these 2 fixators have not/en investigated extensively. Methods: A lumbosacral model from L1 to S1 levels was developed and subjected to muscular contraction, ligamentous interconnection, compressive force, and trunk moment. A static fixator was instrumented at the moderately degenerative L4-L5 segment to serve as a comparison baseline. Subsequently, the 2 fixators were instrumented at the mildly degenerative L3-L4 segment. The tissue responses of the adjacent segments and the load transmission at the screw-spacer and bonescrew interfaces were compared. Results: Both systems show the ability to protect the transition segment but deteriorate the adjacent segments. The screw-hinge joint and the stiffer rod of the Cosmic system significantly constrained the motion pattern of the transition segment. Comparatively, the Dynesys screw-spacer interfaces make contact with and depart from each other during motion; thus providing higher mobility to the transition segment. However, the highly stressed distribution at the Cosmic bonescrew causes the screw and hinge prone to pullout and fatigue failures. Conclusion: Cosmic fixation can/tter protect the disc and facet joint of the transition segment than can the Dynesys. However, the screw-hinge joint strictly constrains intersegmental motion and deteriorates the junctional problem. The Cosmic system can/chosen to treat more severely degenerative transition segments. With higher flexibility, the Dynesys system is recommended for the transition segment that is healthy or mildly degenerative.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)E878-E884
JournalSpine
Volume39
Issue number15
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Biomechanical Phenomena
Joints
Zygapophyseal Joint
Muscle Contraction
Fatigue

Keywords

  • Cosmic
  • Dynamic fixator
  • Dynesys
  • Finite-element
  • Junctional problem

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Kinematic and mechanical comparisons of lumbar hybrid fixation using dynesys and cosmic systems. / Chien, Chen Ying; Kuo, Yi Jie; Lin, Shang Chih; Chuang, Wen Hsien; Luh, Yuan Ping.

In: Spine, Vol. 39, No. 15, 2014, p. E878-E884.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chien, Chen Ying ; Kuo, Yi Jie ; Lin, Shang Chih ; Chuang, Wen Hsien ; Luh, Yuan Ping. / Kinematic and mechanical comparisons of lumbar hybrid fixation using dynesys and cosmic systems. In: Spine. 2014 ; Vol. 39, No. 15. pp. E878-E884.
@article{5706d4b75184414888f9ac337af6302b,
title = "Kinematic and mechanical comparisons of lumbar hybrid fixation using dynesys and cosmic systems",
abstract = "Study Design: The biomechanical effects of Dynesys and Cosmic fixators on transition and adjacent segments were evaluated usinag the finite-element method. Objective. This study investigated the load-transferring mechanisms of 2 dynamic fixators and the fixator-induced effects on the junctional problem of the adjacent segments. Summary of Background Data: The mobility and flexibility of Dynesys screw-spacer and Cosmic screw-hinge joints preserve motion and share loads for the transition segment. However, the differences in tissue responses and fixator mechanisms among these 2 fixators have not/en investigated extensively. Methods: A lumbosacral model from L1 to S1 levels was developed and subjected to muscular contraction, ligamentous interconnection, compressive force, and trunk moment. A static fixator was instrumented at the moderately degenerative L4-L5 segment to serve as a comparison baseline. Subsequently, the 2 fixators were instrumented at the mildly degenerative L3-L4 segment. The tissue responses of the adjacent segments and the load transmission at the screw-spacer and bonescrew interfaces were compared. Results: Both systems show the ability to protect the transition segment but deteriorate the adjacent segments. The screw-hinge joint and the stiffer rod of the Cosmic system significantly constrained the motion pattern of the transition segment. Comparatively, the Dynesys screw-spacer interfaces make contact with and depart from each other during motion; thus providing higher mobility to the transition segment. However, the highly stressed distribution at the Cosmic bonescrew causes the screw and hinge prone to pullout and fatigue failures. Conclusion: Cosmic fixation can/tter protect the disc and facet joint of the transition segment than can the Dynesys. However, the screw-hinge joint strictly constrains intersegmental motion and deteriorates the junctional problem. The Cosmic system can/chosen to treat more severely degenerative transition segments. With higher flexibility, the Dynesys system is recommended for the transition segment that is healthy or mildly degenerative.",
keywords = "Cosmic, Dynamic fixator, Dynesys, Finite-element, Junctional problem",
author = "Chien, {Chen Ying} and Kuo, {Yi Jie} and Lin, {Shang Chih} and Chuang, {Wen Hsien} and Luh, {Yuan Ping}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1097/BRS.0000000000000388",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "E878--E884",
journal = "Spine",
issn = "1528-1159",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "15",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Kinematic and mechanical comparisons of lumbar hybrid fixation using dynesys and cosmic systems

AU - Chien, Chen Ying

AU - Kuo, Yi Jie

AU - Lin, Shang Chih

AU - Chuang, Wen Hsien

AU - Luh, Yuan Ping

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Study Design: The biomechanical effects of Dynesys and Cosmic fixators on transition and adjacent segments were evaluated usinag the finite-element method. Objective. This study investigated the load-transferring mechanisms of 2 dynamic fixators and the fixator-induced effects on the junctional problem of the adjacent segments. Summary of Background Data: The mobility and flexibility of Dynesys screw-spacer and Cosmic screw-hinge joints preserve motion and share loads for the transition segment. However, the differences in tissue responses and fixator mechanisms among these 2 fixators have not/en investigated extensively. Methods: A lumbosacral model from L1 to S1 levels was developed and subjected to muscular contraction, ligamentous interconnection, compressive force, and trunk moment. A static fixator was instrumented at the moderately degenerative L4-L5 segment to serve as a comparison baseline. Subsequently, the 2 fixators were instrumented at the mildly degenerative L3-L4 segment. The tissue responses of the adjacent segments and the load transmission at the screw-spacer and bonescrew interfaces were compared. Results: Both systems show the ability to protect the transition segment but deteriorate the adjacent segments. The screw-hinge joint and the stiffer rod of the Cosmic system significantly constrained the motion pattern of the transition segment. Comparatively, the Dynesys screw-spacer interfaces make contact with and depart from each other during motion; thus providing higher mobility to the transition segment. However, the highly stressed distribution at the Cosmic bonescrew causes the screw and hinge prone to pullout and fatigue failures. Conclusion: Cosmic fixation can/tter protect the disc and facet joint of the transition segment than can the Dynesys. However, the screw-hinge joint strictly constrains intersegmental motion and deteriorates the junctional problem. The Cosmic system can/chosen to treat more severely degenerative transition segments. With higher flexibility, the Dynesys system is recommended for the transition segment that is healthy or mildly degenerative.

AB - Study Design: The biomechanical effects of Dynesys and Cosmic fixators on transition and adjacent segments were evaluated usinag the finite-element method. Objective. This study investigated the load-transferring mechanisms of 2 dynamic fixators and the fixator-induced effects on the junctional problem of the adjacent segments. Summary of Background Data: The mobility and flexibility of Dynesys screw-spacer and Cosmic screw-hinge joints preserve motion and share loads for the transition segment. However, the differences in tissue responses and fixator mechanisms among these 2 fixators have not/en investigated extensively. Methods: A lumbosacral model from L1 to S1 levels was developed and subjected to muscular contraction, ligamentous interconnection, compressive force, and trunk moment. A static fixator was instrumented at the moderately degenerative L4-L5 segment to serve as a comparison baseline. Subsequently, the 2 fixators were instrumented at the mildly degenerative L3-L4 segment. The tissue responses of the adjacent segments and the load transmission at the screw-spacer and bonescrew interfaces were compared. Results: Both systems show the ability to protect the transition segment but deteriorate the adjacent segments. The screw-hinge joint and the stiffer rod of the Cosmic system significantly constrained the motion pattern of the transition segment. Comparatively, the Dynesys screw-spacer interfaces make contact with and depart from each other during motion; thus providing higher mobility to the transition segment. However, the highly stressed distribution at the Cosmic bonescrew causes the screw and hinge prone to pullout and fatigue failures. Conclusion: Cosmic fixation can/tter protect the disc and facet joint of the transition segment than can the Dynesys. However, the screw-hinge joint strictly constrains intersegmental motion and deteriorates the junctional problem. The Cosmic system can/chosen to treat more severely degenerative transition segments. With higher flexibility, the Dynesys system is recommended for the transition segment that is healthy or mildly degenerative.

KW - Cosmic

KW - Dynamic fixator

KW - Dynesys

KW - Finite-element

KW - Junctional problem

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84926157725&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84926157725&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000388

DO - 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000388

M3 - Article

C2 - 24827511

AN - SCOPUS:84926157725

VL - 39

SP - E878-E884

JO - Spine

JF - Spine

SN - 1528-1159

IS - 15

ER -