Biomechanical evaluation of posterior lumbar dynamic stabilization: An in vitro comparison between Universal Clamp and Wallis systems

Brice Ilharreborde, Miranda N. Shaw, Lawrence J. Berglund, Kristin D Zhao, Ralph Gay, Kai Nan An

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Treatment of chronic low back pain due to degenerative lumbar spine conditions often involves fusion of the symptomatic level. A known risk of this procedure is accelerated adjacent level degeneration. Motion preservation devices have been designed to provide stabilization to the symptomatic motion segment while preserving some physiologic motion. The aim of this study was to compare the changes in relative range of motion caused as a result of application of two non-fusion, dynamic stabilization devices: the Universal Clamp (UC) and the Wallis device. Nine fresh, frozen human lumbar spines (L1-Sacrum) were tested in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation with a custom spine simulator. Specimens were tested in four conditions: (1) intact, (2) the Universal Clamp implanted at L3-4 (UC), (3) the UC with a transverse rod added (UCTR), and (4) the Wallis device implanted at L3-4. Total range of motion at 7.5 N-m was determined for each device and compared to intact condition. The UC device (with or without a transverse rod) restricted motion in all planes more than the Wallis. The greatest restriction was observed in flexion. The neutral position of the L3-4 motion segment shifted toward extension with the UC and UCTR. Motion at the adjacent levels remained similar to that observed in the intact spine for all three constructs. These results suggest that the UC device may be an appropriate dynamic stabilization device for degenerative lumbar disorders.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)289-296
Number of pages8
JournalEuropean Spine Journal
Volume20
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2011

Fingerprint

Equipment and Supplies
Spine
Articular Range of Motion
Sacrum
In Vitro Techniques
Low Back Pain
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Biomechanics
  • Posterior dynamic stabilization
  • Range of motion
  • Universal Clamp
  • Wallis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Biomechanical evaluation of posterior lumbar dynamic stabilization : An in vitro comparison between Universal Clamp and Wallis systems. / Ilharreborde, Brice; Shaw, Miranda N.; Berglund, Lawrence J.; Zhao, Kristin D; Gay, Ralph; An, Kai Nan.

In: European Spine Journal, Vol. 20, No. 2, 02.2011, p. 289-296.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7e57504d37114b448be7917f7c8d7bb8,
title = "Biomechanical evaluation of posterior lumbar dynamic stabilization: An in vitro comparison between Universal Clamp and Wallis systems",
abstract = "Treatment of chronic low back pain due to degenerative lumbar spine conditions often involves fusion of the symptomatic level. A known risk of this procedure is accelerated adjacent level degeneration. Motion preservation devices have been designed to provide stabilization to the symptomatic motion segment while preserving some physiologic motion. The aim of this study was to compare the changes in relative range of motion caused as a result of application of two non-fusion, dynamic stabilization devices: the Universal Clamp (UC) and the Wallis device. Nine fresh, frozen human lumbar spines (L1-Sacrum) were tested in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation with a custom spine simulator. Specimens were tested in four conditions: (1) intact, (2) the Universal Clamp implanted at L3-4 (UC), (3) the UC with a transverse rod added (UCTR), and (4) the Wallis device implanted at L3-4. Total range of motion at 7.5 N-m was determined for each device and compared to intact condition. The UC device (with or without a transverse rod) restricted motion in all planes more than the Wallis. The greatest restriction was observed in flexion. The neutral position of the L3-4 motion segment shifted toward extension with the UC and UCTR. Motion at the adjacent levels remained similar to that observed in the intact spine for all three constructs. These results suggest that the UC device may be an appropriate dynamic stabilization device for degenerative lumbar disorders.",
keywords = "Biomechanics, Posterior dynamic stabilization, Range of motion, Universal Clamp, Wallis",
author = "Brice Ilharreborde and Shaw, {Miranda N.} and Berglund, {Lawrence J.} and Zhao, {Kristin D} and Ralph Gay and An, {Kai Nan}",
year = "2011",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1007/s00586-010-1641-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "289--296",
journal = "European Spine Journal",
issn = "0940-6719",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biomechanical evaluation of posterior lumbar dynamic stabilization

T2 - An in vitro comparison between Universal Clamp and Wallis systems

AU - Ilharreborde, Brice

AU - Shaw, Miranda N.

AU - Berglund, Lawrence J.

AU - Zhao, Kristin D

AU - Gay, Ralph

AU - An, Kai Nan

PY - 2011/2

Y1 - 2011/2

N2 - Treatment of chronic low back pain due to degenerative lumbar spine conditions often involves fusion of the symptomatic level. A known risk of this procedure is accelerated adjacent level degeneration. Motion preservation devices have been designed to provide stabilization to the symptomatic motion segment while preserving some physiologic motion. The aim of this study was to compare the changes in relative range of motion caused as a result of application of two non-fusion, dynamic stabilization devices: the Universal Clamp (UC) and the Wallis device. Nine fresh, frozen human lumbar spines (L1-Sacrum) were tested in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation with a custom spine simulator. Specimens were tested in four conditions: (1) intact, (2) the Universal Clamp implanted at L3-4 (UC), (3) the UC with a transverse rod added (UCTR), and (4) the Wallis device implanted at L3-4. Total range of motion at 7.5 N-m was determined for each device and compared to intact condition. The UC device (with or without a transverse rod) restricted motion in all planes more than the Wallis. The greatest restriction was observed in flexion. The neutral position of the L3-4 motion segment shifted toward extension with the UC and UCTR. Motion at the adjacent levels remained similar to that observed in the intact spine for all three constructs. These results suggest that the UC device may be an appropriate dynamic stabilization device for degenerative lumbar disorders.

AB - Treatment of chronic low back pain due to degenerative lumbar spine conditions often involves fusion of the symptomatic level. A known risk of this procedure is accelerated adjacent level degeneration. Motion preservation devices have been designed to provide stabilization to the symptomatic motion segment while preserving some physiologic motion. The aim of this study was to compare the changes in relative range of motion caused as a result of application of two non-fusion, dynamic stabilization devices: the Universal Clamp (UC) and the Wallis device. Nine fresh, frozen human lumbar spines (L1-Sacrum) were tested in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation with a custom spine simulator. Specimens were tested in four conditions: (1) intact, (2) the Universal Clamp implanted at L3-4 (UC), (3) the UC with a transverse rod added (UCTR), and (4) the Wallis device implanted at L3-4. Total range of motion at 7.5 N-m was determined for each device and compared to intact condition. The UC device (with or without a transverse rod) restricted motion in all planes more than the Wallis. The greatest restriction was observed in flexion. The neutral position of the L3-4 motion segment shifted toward extension with the UC and UCTR. Motion at the adjacent levels remained similar to that observed in the intact spine for all three constructs. These results suggest that the UC device may be an appropriate dynamic stabilization device for degenerative lumbar disorders.

KW - Biomechanics

KW - Posterior dynamic stabilization

KW - Range of motion

KW - Universal Clamp

KW - Wallis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79951678527&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79951678527&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00586-010-1641-1

DO - 10.1007/s00586-010-1641-1

M3 - Article

C2 - 21132335

AN - SCOPUS:79951678527

VL - 20

SP - 289

EP - 296

JO - European Spine Journal

JF - European Spine Journal

SN - 0940-6719

IS - 2

ER -