Purpose: Hybrid stabilization with a dynamic implant has been suggested to avoid adjacent segment disease by creating a smoother transition zone from the instrumented segments to the untreated levels above. This study aims to characterize the transition zones of two-level posterior instrumentation strategies for elucidating biomechanical differences between rigid fixation and the hybrid stabilization approach with a pedicle screw-based dynamic implant.
Methods: Eight human lumbar spines (L1-5) were loaded in a spine tester with pure moments of 7.5 Nm and with a hybrid loading protocol. The range of motion (ROM) of all segments for both loading protocols was evaluated and normalized to the native ROM.
Results: For pure moment loading, ROM of the segments cranial to both instrumentations were not affected by the type of instrumentation (p > 0.5). The dynamic instrumentation in L3-4 reduced the ROM compared to intact (p < 0.05) but allowed more motion than the rigid fixation of the same segment (p < 0.05). Under hybrid loading testing, the cranial segments (L1-2, L2-3) had a significant higher ROM for both instrumentations compared to the intact (p < 0.05). Comparing the two instrumentations with each other, the rigid fixation resulted in a higher increased ROM of L1-2 and L2-3 than hybrid stabilization.
Conclusions: Regardless of the implant, two-level posterior instrumentation was accompanied by a considerable amount of compensatory movement in the cranial untreated segments under the hybrid protocol. Hybrid stabilization, however, showed a significant reduction of this compensatory movement in comparison to rigid fixation. These results could support the surgical strategy of hybrid stabilization, whereas the concept of topping-off, including a healthy segment, is discouraged.
Keywords: Dynamic stabilization; Hybrid stabilization; Lumbar; Lumbar fusion; Spine biomechanics; Topping-off.