INTRODUCTION: A number of concepts with controversy approaches are currently discussed for interspinous stabilization (IPS). However, comparative biomechanical studies among the different systems are rare. Nevertheless, it remains unclear which biomechanical characteristics are influenced by different design features of these implants, such as implant stiffness or an additional tension band. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare different interspinous implants to investigate the biomechanical impact of IPS implant design on intersegmental kinematics, such as range of motion, neutral zone, center of rotation (COR), as well as load transfer like intradiscal pressure (IDP), to gain additional experience for clinical indications and limitations. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Twelve human lumbar spine specimens were tested in a spine loading apparatus. In vitro flexibility testing was performed by applying pure bending moments of 7.5 Nm without and with additional preload of 400 N in the three principal motion planes. Four interspinous implants, Coflex "COF" (Paradigm Spine, Germany), Wallis "WAL" (Abbott Laboratories, France), DIAM "DIA" (Sofamor Danek, France) and InterActiv (Aesculap AG, Germany) with two treatment options (without dorsal tensioning "IAO" and with dorsal tensioning "IAM") were consecutively tested in comparison to the native situation "NAT" and to a defect situation "DEF" of the functional spinal unit. The tested IPS devices are comprised of a compression stiffness range of 133 to 1,674 N/mm and a tensile stiffness range of 0-39 N/mm. Range of motion, neutral zone, center of rotation and intradiscal pressure were analyzed for all instrumentation steps and load cases. CONCLUSION: For the IPS, we found a correlation between compression stiffness and stabilization in extension. Here, the system with the lowest stiffness, DIA, displayed nearly no stabilization of the treated segment, whereas the system with the highest stiffness, WAL and COF, was most pronounced. This applies also for the correlation between device stiffness and IDP. In flexion only the degree of stabilization is in correlation with the tensile stiffness, whereas the IDP stays constant and is not affected by the different tensile stiffness. IPS is not able to stabilize in the frontal and transversal plane. Furthermore IPS does not substantially alter the location of the COR.
INTRODUCTION: A number of concepts with controversy approaches are currently discussed for interspinous stabilization (IPS). However, comparative biomechanical studies among the different systems are rare. Nevertheless, it remains unclear which biomechanical characteristics are influenced by different design features of these implants, such as implant stiffness or an additional tension band. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare different interspinous implants to investigate the biomechanical impact of IPS implant design on intersegmental kinematics, such as range of motion, neutral zone, center of rotation (COR), as well as load transfer like intradiscal pressure (IDP), to gain additional experience for clinical indications and limitations. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Twelve human lumbar spine specimens were tested in a spine loading apparatus. In vitro flexibility testing was performed by applying pure bending moments of 7.5 Nm without and with additional preload of 400 N in the three principal motion planes. Four interspinous implants, Coflex "COF" (Paradigm Spine, Germany), Wallis "WAL" (Abbott Laboratories, France), DIAM "DIA" (Sofamor Danek, France) and InterActiv (Aesculap AG, Germany) with two treatment options (without dorsal tensioning "IAO" and with dorsal tensioning "IAM") were consecutively tested in comparison to the native situation "NAT" and to a defect situation "DEF" of the functional spinal unit. The tested IPS devices are comprised of a compression stiffness range of 133 to 1,674 N/mm and a tensile stiffness range of 0-39 N/mm. Range of motion, neutral zone, center of rotation and intradiscal pressure were analyzed for all instrumentation steps and load cases. CONCLUSION: For the IPS, we found a correlation between compression stiffness and stabilization in extension. Here, the system with the lowest stiffness, DIA, displayed nearly no stabilization of the treated segment, whereas the system with the highest stiffness, WAL and COF, was most pronounced. This applies also for the correlation between device stiffness and IDP. In flexion only the degree of stabilization is in correlation with the tensile stiffness, whereas the IDP stays constant and is not affected by the different tensile stiffness. IPS is not able to stabilize in the frontal and transversal plane. Furthermore IPS does not substantially alter the location of the COR.
Authors: Kyle E Swanson; Derek P Lindsey; Ken Y Hsu; James F Zucherman; Scott A Yerby Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2003-01-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Christina A Niosi; Qingan A Zhu; Derek C Wilson; Ory Keynan; David R Wilson; Thomas R Oxland Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2005-10-11 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: James F Zucherman; Ken Y Hsu; Charles A Hartjen; Thomas F Mehalic; Dante A Implicito; Michael J Martin; Donald R Johnson; Grant A Skidmore; Paul P Vessa; James W Dwyer; Stephen T Puccio; Joseph C Cauthen; Richard M Ozuna Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-06-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: A Fujiwara; T H Lim; H S An; N Tanaka; C H Jeon; G B Andersson; V M Haughton Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2000-12-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Derek P Lindsey; Kyle E Swanson; Paul Fuchs; Ken Y Hsu; James F Zucherman; Scott A Yerby Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2003-10-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Maciej Radek; Andrzej Radek; Jacek Rysz; Zbigniew Maziarz; Mariusz Gadzicki; Wiesław Tryniszewski Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2016-12-19 Impact factor: 3.318