Effect of a posterior dynamic implant adjacent to a rigid spinal fixator

Background. A slightly degenerated disc adjacent to a segment that has to be fused is sometimes instrumented with a dynamic fixator. The dynamic implant is assumed to reduce disc loads at that level and to preserve disc function, thus inhibiting the progression of degeneration. Methods. A three-dimensional finite element model of the lumbar spine was used to study the effect of a dynamic implant on the mechanical behavior at the corresponding level. After studying a healthy lumbar spine for comparison, a rigid fixator and a bone graft were inserted at L2/L3. Healthy and degenerated discs were assumed at the adjacent level, i.e. L3/L4. An additional paired dynamic posterior fixator was then implemented at level L3/L4. Finally, the segment with the dynamic fixator was distracted to the height of a healthy disc. The loading cases of walking, extension, flexion and axial rotation were simulated. Findings. A dynamic implant reduces intersegmental rotation for walking, extension and flexion as well as facet joint forces for axial rotation at its insertion level. Intradiscal pressure is not markedly reduced by a dynamic implant. Moreover, there are no substantial differences between the mechanical behavior of rigid and dynamic fixators. Interpretation. Our model does not predict major differences in the mechanical effects between rigid and dynamic fixators despite the extreme assumption that a dynamic implant does not transfer moments. The results do not support the assumption that disc loads are significantly reduced by a dynamic implant. For axial rotation, however, dynamic fixation devices do reduce the force in the facet joint.