This study used finite element (FE) analysis with the load-controlled method (LCM) and the displacement-controlled method (DCM) to examine motion differences at the implant level and adjacent levels between fusion and non-fusion implants. A validated three-dimensional intact (INT) L1-L5 FE model was used. At the L3-L4 level, the INT model was modified to surgery models, including the artificial disc replacement (ADR) of ProDisc II, and the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) cage with pedicle screw fixation. The LCM imposed 10 Nm moments of four physiological motions and a 150 N preload at the top of L1. The DCM process was in accordance with the hybrid testing protocol. The average percentage changes in the range of motion (ROM) for whole non-operated levels were used to predict adjacent level effects (ALE%). At the implant level, the ALIF model showed similar stability with both control methods. The ADR model using the LCM had a higher ROM than the model using the DCM, especially in extension and torsion. At the adjacent levels, the ALIF model increased ALE% (at least 17 per cent) using the DCM compared with the LCM. The ADR model had an ALE% close to that of the INT model, using the LCM (average within 6 per cent), while the ALE% decreased when using the DCM. The study suggests that both control methods can be adopted to predict the fusion model at the implant level, and similar stabilization characteristics can be found. The LCM will emphasize the effects of the non-fusion implants. The DCM was more clinically relevant in evaluating the fusion model at the adjacent levels. In conclusion, both the LCM and the DCM should be considered in numerical simulations to obtain more realistic data in spinal implant biomechanics.

No abstract

The Dynesys dynamics stabilisation system was developed to maintain the mobility of motion segment of the lumbar spine in order to reduce the incidence of negative effects at the adjacent segments. However, the magnitude of cord pretension may change the stiffness of the Dynesys system and result in a diverse clinical outcome, and the effects of Dynesys cord pretension remain unclear. Displacement-controlled finite element analysis was used to evaluate the biomechanical behaviour of the lumbar spine after insertion of Dynesys with three different cord pretensions. For the implanted level, increasing the cord pretension from 100 to 300 N resulted in an increase in flexion stiffness from 19.0 to 64.5 Nm/deg, a marked increase in facet contact force (FCF) of 35% in extension and 32% in torsion, a 40% increase of the annulus stress in torsion, and an increase in the high-stress region of the pedicle screw in flexion and lateral bending. For the adjacent levels, varying the cord pretension from 100 to 300 N only had a minor influence on range of motion (ROM), FCF, and annulus stress, with changes of 6, 12, and 9%, respectively. This study found that alteration of cord pretension affects the ROM and FCF, and annulus stress within the construct but not the adjacent segment. In addition, use of a 300 N cord pretension causes a much higher stiffness at the implanted level when compared with the intact lumbar spine.

This study found that the Dynesys system was able to restore spinal stability and alleviate loading on disc and facet at the surgical level, but greater ROM, annulus stress, and facet loading were found at the adjacent level. In addition, profile of the screw placement caused only a minor influence on the ROM, annulus stress, and facet loading, but the screw stress was noticeably increased.

No abstract