Properties of an interspinous fixation device (ISD) in lumbar fusion constructs: a biomechanical study
Abstract Background Segmental fixation improves fusion rates and promotes patient mobility by controlling instability after lumbar surgery. Efforts to obtain stability using less invasive techniques have lead to the advent of new implants and constructs. A new interspinous fixation device (ISD) has...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The spine journal 2013-05, Vol.13 (5), p.572-579 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Abstract Background Segmental fixation improves fusion rates and promotes patient mobility by controlling instability after lumbar surgery. Efforts to obtain stability using less invasive techniques have lead to the advent of new implants and constructs. A new interspinous fixation device (ISD) has been introduced as a minimally invasive method of stabilizing two adjacent interspinous processes by augmenting an interbody cage in transforaminal interbody fusion. The ISD is intended to replace the standard pedicle screw instrumentation used for posterior fixation. Purpose The purpose of this study is to compare the rigidity of these implant systems when supplementing an interbody cage as used in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Study design An in vitro human cadaveric biomechanical study. Methods Seven human cadaver spines (T12 to the sacrum) were mounted in a custom-designed testing apparatus, for biomechanical testing using a multiaxial robotic system. A comparison of segmental stiffness was carried out among five conditions: intact spine control; interbody spacer (IBS), alone; interbody cage with ISD; IBS, ISD, and unilateral pedicle screws (unilat); and IBS, with bilateral pedicle screws (bilat). An industrial robot (KUKA, GmbH, Augsburg, Germany) applied a pure moment (±5 Nm) in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) through an anchor to the T12 vertebral body. The relative vertebral motion was captured using an optoelectronic camera system (Optotrak; Northern Digital, Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, Canada). The load sensor and the camera were synchronized. Maximum rotation was measured at each level and compared with the intact control. Implant constructs were compared with the control and with each other. A statistical analysis was performed using analysis of variance. Results A comparison between the intact spine and the IBS group showed no significant difference in the range of motion (ROM) in FE, LB, or AR for the operated level, L3–L4. After implantation of the ISD to augment the IBS, there was a significant decrease in the ROM of 74% in FE (p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1529-9430 1878-1632 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.01.042 |