SpineComparison of pressure effects on adjacent disk levels after 2-level lumbar constructs: fusion, hybrid, and total disk replacement
Introduction
Chronic low back pain is a common problem in the general population, leading to an estimated 13 million physician visits and 50 million chiropractor visits per year in the United States alone [13]. A significant proportion of lower back pain is related to the degeneration of the intervertebral disks. Although initial treatment of DDD is generally conservative, it becomes necessary to perform surgery in patients if the conservative approach fails to provide symptomatic relief and/or if there is progressive neurologic deterioration. Although diskectomy is still accepted as an option for a single-level disease, most surgeons prefer to add a stabilization procedure when the disease involves more than one level of lumbar spine because the clinical outcomes of diskectomy alone in this setting are not satisfactory [14].
The stabilization procedures can be broadly divided into 2 groups: arthrodesis and arthroplasty [3]. Arthrodesis or spinal fusion consists of distraction and surgical immobilization of the functional spine unit to effectively eliminate the motion between 2 vertebrae. This reduces the pain and provides improved stability to the spine. Arthroplasty involves implantation of an artificial disk in the intervertebral space and is claimed to relieve symptoms by restoring functionality of the degenerated disk.
However, the published literature still lacks reports about biomechanical bench studies that specifically focus on the pressure changes at adjacent-level intervertebral disks within physiological ranges of motion after arthrodesis or arthroplasty involving 2 consecutive levels of lumbar spine. The present study was designed to specifically study the pressure changes that occur at these adjacent-level disks after 2-level TDR, 2-level fusion, or a hybrid procedure consisting of disk replacement at one level and fusion at the other level in lumbar spine.
We hypothesized that the intradiskal pressures at the adjacent segments after 2-level TDR, a hybrid procedure, and/or 2-level fusion procedure will show significant variance within physiological range of motion in flexion, extension, and lateral bending.
Section snippets
Material and methods
Six cadaver spine segments (T10 to sacrum) were harvested from unembalmed cadavers with an average age of 66 years (range, 52-77 years). The spine specimens were free of anatomical deficits or pathology. All specimens were kept frozen until debridement, potting, and testing. The superficial soft tissue was removed, leaving only the ligamentous attachments intact. The distal portion of the sacrum was embedded in an automotive epoxy compound (Bondo, Atlanta, GA). The proximal segments of T10-T11
Diskectomy
After measuring the pressures in the intact specimens, all specimens were subjected to a 2-level diskectomy without additional instrumentation at first; and the pressures at the adjacent levels were measured to validate the design of the experimental setup. It was noted that the pressures in flexion and extension significantly dropped at the L3-L4 levels after diskectomy even when compared with intact specimens. However, the adjacent levels did not show a decrease in pressures after diskectomy
Discussion
Chow et al [2] studied the intradiskal pressures for intact and simulated fusion of 1-level L4-5 and 2-level L4-S1 in cadavers to demonstrate the change in pressures in the unfused segments. They measured pressures in the intact disks at L2-3 and L3-L4 in 15° flexion mode and showed a statistically significant increase in pressures in specimens after 2-level fusion procedures. In the current experiment, we analyzed the normalized values (procedure/intact) to reduce the variability within
Conclusion
The pressures at the adjacent-level disks (L3-L4 and L2-L3) within physiological range of motion are independent of the stabilization procedure (2-level disk replacement, hybrid, or 2-level fusion) performed after 2-level diskectomy in the lumbosacral spine. However, the present study, being a biomechanical laboratory experiment, needs to be corroborated by future clinical trials to confirm the findings.
References (15)
- et al.
Biomechanical comparison between fusion of two vertebrae and implantation of artificial disc
J Biomech
(2006) - et al.
Response to Charite total disc replacement under physiological loads: prosthesis component motion pattern
Spine J
(2005) - et al.
Disc arthroplasty design influences Intervertebral kinematics and facet forces
Spine J
(2006) - et al.
Evaluation of the mobility of adjacent segments after posterior thoracolumbar fixation: a biomechanical study
Eur Spine J
(2001) - et al.
Effects of short anterior lumbar interbody fusion on biomechanics of neighboring unfused segments
Spine
(1996) - et al.
Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for low back pain: comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective randomized study. A report from the Swedish lumbar spine study group
Eur Spine J
(2003) - et al.
Intervertebral disc prosthesis
Spine
(2003)
Cited by (13)
A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in hybrid constructs for multi-level lumbar degenerative disc disease
2016, Journal of Clinical NeuroscienceCitation Excerpt :These benefits however may not translate to clinical advantages as other biomechanical studies have shown. Similar pressures across L2–L4 adjacent segments regardless of the stabilization intervention through L4–S1 whether it was multi-level LF, TDA or hybrid fusion have been reported [27]. Measuring movement, not pressure, Panjabi et al. however found multi-level fusions redistributed and significantly increased movement at adjacent levels while CHARITE disc constructs preserved both intervened and adjacent segment movement [28].
Survivorship and clinical outcomes after multi-level anterior lumbar reconstruction with stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion or hybrid construct
2016, Journal of Clinical NeuroscienceCitation Excerpt :There is evidence that fusion constructs alter sagittal balance and contribute to undesirable complications in the long-term, including as failed back syndrome and adjacent segment disease. Several studies on TDR have shown outcomes that compare favorably with fusion, particularly for single-level disease [11,12]. For two-level TDR, there is evidence to suggest a higher risk of facet joint arthropathy and poorer outcome when compared to single-level TDR [6].
Mid- to long-term results of total lumbar disc replacement: A prospective analysis with 5- to 10-year follow-up
2014, Spine JournalCitation Excerpt :Considerable progress with regard to the assessment of adequate indications and contraindications for TDR has been made [33–37,63–66], outcome-determining factors have been identified including the adequate extent of DDD, knowledge on the center of rotation, segmental and sagittal alignment after TDR, influence of pre- and postoperative mobility, and adequate implant placement [15,67–80]. Similarly, biomechanical and radiological studies have investigated the effect of TDR on the index and adjacent level as well as motion characteristics of the prosthesis and the lumbar spine to a large extent [81–101]. Despite the previously mentioned satisfactory results, which were observed in the present study, the current data nevertheless have to be interpreted as a “worst-case scenario” that included the initial clinical and technical learning curve.
Hybrids: good for cars and the environment-are they good for the spine too?
2009, Spine JournalSingle-Level Total Disc Replacement: Index-Level and Adjacent-Level Revision Surgery Incidence, Characteristics, and Outcomes
2022, International Journal of Spine SurgeryShort-Term Impact of Bracing in Multi-Level Posterior Lumbar Spinal Fusion
2021, International Journal of Spine Surgery