Literature DB >> 33378405

Effect of different designs of interspinous process devices on the instrumented and adjacent levels after double-level lumbar decompression surgery: A finite element analysis.

Hao-Ju Lo1,2, Hung-Ming Chen3, Yi-Jie Kuo4,5, Sai-Wei Yang1.   

Abstract

Recently, various designs and material manufactured interspinous process devices (IPDs) are on the market in managing symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). However, atraumatic fracture of the intervening spinous process has been reported in patients, particularly, double or multiple level lumbar decompression surgery with IPDs. This study aimed to biomechanically investigate the effects of few commercial IPDs, namely DIAMTM, CoflexTM, and M-PEEK, which were implanted into the L2-3, L3-4 double-level lumbar spinal processes. A validated finite element model of musculoskeletal intact lumbar spinal column was modified to accommodate the numerical analysis of different implants. The range of motion (ROM) between each vertebra, stiffness of the implanted level, intra stress on the intervertebral discs and facet joints, and the contact forces on spinous processes were compared. Among the three implants, the Coflex system showed the largest ROM restriction in extension and caused the highest stress over the disc annulus at the adjacent levels, as well as the sandwich phenomenon on the spinous process at the instrumented levels. Further, the DIAM device provided a superior loading-sharing between the two bridge supports, and the M-PEEK system offered a superior load-sharing from the superior spinous process to the lower pedicle screw. The limited motion at the instrumented segments were compensated by the upper and lower adjacent functional units, however, this increasing ROM and stress would accelerate the degeneration of un-instrumented segments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33378405      PMCID: PMC7773253          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244571

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  33 in total

1.  Biomechanical comparison of single-level posterior versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions with bilateral pedicle screw fixation: segmental stability and the effects on adjacent motion segments.

Authors:  Hong Bo Sim; Judith A Murovic; Bo Young Cho; T Jesse Lim; Jon Park
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2010-06

2.  Hybrid multidirectional test method to evaluate spinal adjacent-level effects.

Authors:  Manohar M Panjabi
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2006-12-29       Impact factor: 2.063

3.  Biomechanical effect after Coflex and Coflex rivet implantation for segmental instability at surgical and adjacent segments: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Cheng-Chan Lo; Kai-Jow Tsai; Shih-Hao Chen; Zheng-Cheng Zhong; Chinghua Hung
Journal:  Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin       Date:  2011-05-25       Impact factor: 1.763

Review 4.  Limitations of current in vitro test protocols for investigation of instrumented adjacent segment biomechanics: critical analysis of the literature.

Authors:  David Volkheimer; Masoud Malakoutian; Thomas R Oxland; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Comparison of the efficacy and safety between interspinous process distraction device and open decompression surgery in treating lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta analysis.

Authors:  Peiwei Hong; Yao Liu; Hedong Li
Journal:  J Invest Surg       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 2.533

6.  Failure rates and complications of interspinous process decompression devices: a European multicenter study.

Authors:  Roberto Gazzeri; Marcelo Galarza; Massimiliano Neroni; Claudio Fiore; Andrea Faiola; Fabrizio Puzzilli; Giorgio Callovini; Alex Alfieri
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 4.047

Review 7.  Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane Review.

Authors:  J N Alastair Gibson; Gordon Waddell
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Finite element analysis of the biomechanical effect of coflex™ on the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Dong-Hak Byun; Dong Ah Shin; Jin-Myung Kim; So-Hee Kim; Hyoung-Ihl Kim
Journal:  Korean J Spine       Date:  2012-09-30

9.  Application of an interspinous process device after minimally invasive lumbar decompression could lead to stress redistribution at the pars interarticularis: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Hao-Ju Lo; Chen-Sheng Chen; Hung-Ming Chen; Sai-Wei Yang
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2019-05-15       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  High failure rate of the interspinous distraction device (X-Stop) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis caused by degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Olaf J Verhoof; Johannes L Bron; Frits H Wapstra; Barend J van Royen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-09-11       Impact factor: 3.134

View more
  3 in total

1.  Biomechanical effect of Coflex and X-STOP spacers on the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Zhiyuan Guo; Guangfei Liu; Lu Wang; Yuejiang Zhao; Ye Zhao; Shouliang Lu; Cai Cheng
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2022-07-15       Impact factor: 3.940

2.  Interspinous Process Devices Do Not Reduce Intervertebral Foramina and Discs Heights on Adjacent Segments.

Authors:  Mateusz Krakowiak; Natalia Rulewska; Marcin Rudaś; Maciej Broda; Michał Sabramowicz; Andrzej Jaremko; Krzysztof Leki; Paweł Sokal
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2022-07-14       Impact factor: 2.832

3.  Biomechanical comparison of different interspinous process devices in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Zhengpeng Liu; Shuyi Zhang; Jia Li; Hai Tang
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-06-17       Impact factor: 2.562

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.