Biomechanical Analysis of an Interspinous Process Fixation Device with In Situ Shortening Capabilities: Does Spinous Process Compression Improve Segmental Stability?
Publication/Presentation Date
12-1-2020
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize the biomechanical implications of spinous process compression, via in situ shortening of a next-generation interspinous process fixation (ISPF) device, in the context of segmental fusion.
METHODS: Seven lumbar cadaveric spines (L1-L4) were tested. Specimens were first tested in an intact state, followed by iterative instrumentation at L2-3 and subsequent testing. The order followed was 1) stand-alone ISPF (neutral height); 2) stand-alone ISPF (shortened in situ from neutral height; shortened); 3) lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) + ISPF (neutral); 4) LLIF + ISPF (shortened); 5) LLIF + unilateral pedicle screw fixation; 6) LLIF + bilateral pedicle screw fixation. A 7.5-Nm moment was applied in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation via a kinematic test frame. Segmental range of motion (ROM) and lordosis were measured for all constructs. Comparative analysis was performed.
RESULTS: Statistically significant flexion/extension ROM reductions: all constructs versus intact condition (P < 0.01); LLIF + ISPF (neutral and shortened) versus stand-alone ISPF (neutral and shortened) (P < 0.01); LLIF + USPF versus ISPF (neutral) (P = 0.049); bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) versus stand-alone ISPF (neutral and shortened) (P < 0.01); LLIF + BPSF versus LLIF + unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) (P < 0.01). Significant lateral bending ROM reductions: LLIF + ISPF (neutral and shortened) versus intact condition and stand-alone ISPF (neutral) (P < 0.01); LLIF + UPSF versus intact condition and stand-alone ISPF (neutral and shortened) (P < 0.01); LLIF + BPSF versus intact condition and all constructs (P < 0.01). Significant axial rotation ROM reductions: LLIF + ISPF (shortened) and LLIF + UPSF versus intact condition and stand-alone ISPF (neutral) (P ≤ 0.01); LLIF + BPSF versus intact condition and all constructs (P ≤ 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: In situ shortening of an adjustable ISPF device may support increased segmental stabilization compared with static ISPF.
Volume
144
First Page
483
Last Page
483
ISSN
1878-8769
Published In/Presented At
Wagener C, Gandhi A, Ferry C, Farmer S, DenHaese R. Biomechanical Analysis of an Interspinous Process Fixation Device with In Situ Shortening Capabilities: Does Spinous Process Compression Improve Segmental Stability? World Neurosurg. 2020 Dec;144:e483-e494. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.08.203. Epub 2020 Sep 3. PMID: 32891838.
Disciplines
Medicine and Health Sciences
PubMedID
32891838
Department(s)
Department of Surgery
Document Type
Article