In Vitro Comparison of Dynesys, PEEK, and Titanium Constructs in the Lumbar Spine

Introduction. Pedicle based posterior dynamic stabilization systems aim to stabilize the pathologic spine while also allowing sufficient motion to mitigate adjacent level effects. Two flexible constructs that have been proposed to act in such a manner, the Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization System and PE...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Matthew S. Yeager, Daniel J. Cook, Boyle C. Cheng
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2015-01-01
Series:Advances in Orthopedics
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/895931
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850175709606051840
author Matthew S. Yeager
Daniel J. Cook
Boyle C. Cheng
author_facet Matthew S. Yeager
Daniel J. Cook
Boyle C. Cheng
author_sort Matthew S. Yeager
collection DOAJ
description Introduction. Pedicle based posterior dynamic stabilization systems aim to stabilize the pathologic spine while also allowing sufficient motion to mitigate adjacent level effects. Two flexible constructs that have been proposed to act in such a manner, the Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization System and PEEK rod, have yet to be directly compared in vitro to a rigid Titanium rod. Methods. Human lumbar specimens were tested in flexion extension, lateral bending, and axial torsion to evaluate the following conditions at L4-L5: Intact, Dynesys, PEEK rod, Titanium rod, and Destabilized. Intervertebral range of motion, interpedicular travel, and interpedicular displacement metrics were evaluated from 3rd-cycle data using an optoelectric tracking system. Results. Statistically significant decreases in ROM compared to Intact and Destabilized conditions were detected for the instrumented conditions during flexion extension and lateral bending. AT ROM was significantly less than Destabilized but not the Intact condition. Similar trends were found for interpedicular displacement in all modes of loading; however, interpedicular travel trends were less consistent. More importantly, no metrics under any mode of loading revealed significant differences between Dynesys, PEEK, and Titanium. Conclusion. The results of this study support previous findings that Dynesys and PEEK constructs behave similarly to a Titanium rod in vitro.
format Article
id doaj-art-ba43c528ee854fe2b5b093e84a3be8da
institution OA Journals
issn 2090-3464
2090-3472
language English
publishDate 2015-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Advances in Orthopedics
spelling doaj-art-ba43c528ee854fe2b5b093e84a3be8da2025-08-20T02:19:25ZengWileyAdvances in Orthopedics2090-34642090-34722015-01-01201510.1155/2015/895931895931In Vitro Comparison of Dynesys, PEEK, and Titanium Constructs in the Lumbar SpineMatthew S. Yeager0Daniel J. Cook1Boyle C. Cheng2Department of Neurosurgery, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA 15212, USADepartment of Neurosurgery, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA 15212, USADepartment of Neurosurgery, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA 15212, USAIntroduction. Pedicle based posterior dynamic stabilization systems aim to stabilize the pathologic spine while also allowing sufficient motion to mitigate adjacent level effects. Two flexible constructs that have been proposed to act in such a manner, the Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization System and PEEK rod, have yet to be directly compared in vitro to a rigid Titanium rod. Methods. Human lumbar specimens were tested in flexion extension, lateral bending, and axial torsion to evaluate the following conditions at L4-L5: Intact, Dynesys, PEEK rod, Titanium rod, and Destabilized. Intervertebral range of motion, interpedicular travel, and interpedicular displacement metrics were evaluated from 3rd-cycle data using an optoelectric tracking system. Results. Statistically significant decreases in ROM compared to Intact and Destabilized conditions were detected for the instrumented conditions during flexion extension and lateral bending. AT ROM was significantly less than Destabilized but not the Intact condition. Similar trends were found for interpedicular displacement in all modes of loading; however, interpedicular travel trends were less consistent. More importantly, no metrics under any mode of loading revealed significant differences between Dynesys, PEEK, and Titanium. Conclusion. The results of this study support previous findings that Dynesys and PEEK constructs behave similarly to a Titanium rod in vitro.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/895931
spellingShingle Matthew S. Yeager
Daniel J. Cook
Boyle C. Cheng
In Vitro Comparison of Dynesys, PEEK, and Titanium Constructs in the Lumbar Spine
Advances in Orthopedics
title In Vitro Comparison of Dynesys, PEEK, and Titanium Constructs in the Lumbar Spine
title_full In Vitro Comparison of Dynesys, PEEK, and Titanium Constructs in the Lumbar Spine
title_fullStr In Vitro Comparison of Dynesys, PEEK, and Titanium Constructs in the Lumbar Spine
title_full_unstemmed In Vitro Comparison of Dynesys, PEEK, and Titanium Constructs in the Lumbar Spine
title_short In Vitro Comparison of Dynesys, PEEK, and Titanium Constructs in the Lumbar Spine
title_sort in vitro comparison of dynesys peek and titanium constructs in the lumbar spine
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/895931
work_keys_str_mv AT matthewsyeager invitrocomparisonofdynesyspeekandtitaniumconstructsinthelumbarspine
AT danieljcook invitrocomparisonofdynesyspeekandtitaniumconstructsinthelumbarspine
AT boyleccheng invitrocomparisonofdynesyspeekandtitaniumconstructsinthelumbarspine