Effect of an interspinous implant on loads in the lumbar spine / Einfluss eines interspinösen Implantats auf die Belastungen der Lendenwirbelsäule

The effect of design parameters of interspinous implants on kinematics and load bearing: an in vitro study

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.

Role of lumbar interspinous distraction on the neural elements

The interspinous distraction devices are used to treat variable pathologies ranging from facet syndrome, diskogenic low back pain, degenerative spinal stenosis, diskopathy, spondylolisthesis, and instability. The insertion of a posterior element with an interspinous device (ISD) is commonly judged responsive to a relative kyphosis of a lumbar segment with a moderate but persistent increase of the spinal canal and of the foraminal width and area, and without influence on low-grade spondylolisthesis. The consequence is the need of shared specific biomechanical concepts to give for each degenerative problem the right indication through a critical analysis of all available experimental and clinical biomechanical data. We reviewed systematically the available clinical and experimental data about kyphosis, enlargement of the spinal canal, distraction of the interspinous distance, increase of the neural foramina, ligamentous structures, load of the posterior annulus, intradiskal pressure, strength of the spinous processes, degeneration of the adjacent segment, complications, and cost-effectiveness of the ISD. The existing literature does not provide actual scientific evidence over the superiority of the ISD strategy, but most of the experimental and clinical data show a challenging potential. These considerations are applicable with different types of ISD with only few differences between the different categories. Despite--or because of--the low invasiveness of the surgical implantation of the ISD, this technique promises to play a major role in the future degenerative lumbar microsurgery. The main indications for ISD remain lumbar spinal stenoses and painful facet arthroses. A clear documented contraindication is the presence of an anterolisthesis. Nevertheless, the existing literature does not provide evidence of superiority of outcome and cost-effectiveness of the ISD strategy over laminectomy or other surgical procedures. At this time, the devices should be used in clinical randomized independent trials in order to obtain more information concerning the most advantageous optimal indication or, in selected cases, to treat tailored indications.

Computed tomography measurements of the lumbar spinous processes and interspinous space

PURPOSE

This study examines the anatomic proportions of the interspinous space and the spinous processes, considering the optimal placement of an interspinous spacer.

METHODS

Between January 2008 and December 2009, 565 patients undergoing computed tomography (CT) scans of the abdomen for various reasons were collected retrospectively for the study. Using the CT scan data, spinous processes of the lumbar spine L1-5 and the interspinous spaces T12-L5 were measured.

RESULTS

The average measured interspinous space was 9.1 ± 2.5 mm. This space became significantly (p < 0.001) smaller from anterior to posterior. Average cortical thickness of all lumbar spinous processes was 2.5 ± 0.5 mm. Cortical thickness decreased significantly (p < 0.001) from anterior to posterior. The cortex of the spinous processes from L2 (2.67 ± 0.45 mm) and L3 (2.66 ± 0.94 mm) was significantly thicker (p < 0.001) than that of the others. The spinous process of L5 had the thinnest (p < 0.001) cortex (2.10 ± 0.41 mm), as well as the smallest (p < 0.001) volume (3.0 ± 1.0 ml) and the shortest (p < 0.001) height (16.6 ± 3.6 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

The spinous processes of L2 and L3 are the largest and sturdiest, and that of L5 is the weakest. The L4/5 segment features the smallest interspinous space with the thinnest cortex of all lumbar spinous processes. Because the interspinous space narrows posteriorly and the cortex is thicker anteriorly, it seems that the best anatomic position for a stand alone interspinous spacers is anterior.

[Biomechanics of interspinous spacers]

Interspinous spacers are commonly used to treat lumbar spinal stenosis or facet joint arthritis. The aims of implanting interspinous devices are to unload the facet joints, restore foraminal height, and provide stability especially in extension but still allow motion. This paper summarizes several in vitro studies, which compared four different interspinous implants - Coflex, Wallis, DIAM, and X-STOP - in terms of their three-dimensional primary stability, the intradiscal pressure, and stability after cyclic loading. 24 human lumbar spine specimens were divided into four equal groups and tested with pure moments in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation: intact, after decompression with hemifacetectomy, and after implantation. Implantation had similar biomechanical effects with all four implants. In extension, they overcompensated the instability caused by the defect and restricted extension to about 50% compared to the intact state. In contrast, in flexion, lateral bending, and axial rotation the values of the range of motion stayed similar compared to the defective state. Intradiscal pressure after implantation was similar to that of the intact specimens in flexion, lateral bending, and axial rotation but much smaller during extension; 50,000 load cycles increased the range of motion in all motion planes by no more than 20%, but in extension motion this was still less than in the intact state.

How does spinal canal decompression and dorsal stabilization affect segmental mobility? A biomechanical study

INTRODUCTION

When decompression of the lumbar spinal canal is performed, segmental stability might be affected. Exactly which anatomical structures can thereby be resected without interfering with stability, and when, respectively how, additional stabilization is essential, has not been adequately investigated so far. The present investigation describes kinetic changes in a surgically treated motion segment as well as in its adjacent segments.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Segmental biomechanical examination of nine human lumbar cadaver spines (L1 to L5) was performed without preload in a spine-testing apparatus by means of a precise, ultrasound-guided measuring system. Thus, samples consisting of four free motion segments were made available. Besides measurements in the native (untreated) spine specimen further measurements were done after progressive resection of dorsal elements like lig. flavum, hemilaminectomy, laminectomy and facetectomy. The segment was then stabilised by means of a rigid system (ART((R))) and by means of a dynamic, transpedicularly fixed system (Dynesys((R))).

RESULTS

For the analysis, range of motion (ROM) values and separately viewed data of the respective direction of motion were considered in equal measure. A very high reproducibility of the individual measurements could be verified. In the sagittal and frontal plane, flavectomy and hemilaminectomy did not achieve any relevant change in the ROM in both directions. This applies to the segment operated on as well as to the adjacent segments examined. Resection of the facet likewise does not lead to any distinct increase of mobility in the operated segment as far as flexion and right/left bending is concerned. In extension a striking increase in mobility of more than 1degree compared to the native value can be perceived in the operated segment. Stabilization with the rigid and dynamic system effect an almost equal reduction of flexion/extension and right/left bending. In the adjacent segments, a slightly higher mobility is to be noted for rigid stabilization than for dynamic stabilisation. A linear regression analysis shows that in flexion/extension monosegmental rigid stabilisation is compensated predominantly in the first cranial adjacent segment. In case of a dynamic stabilisation the compensation is distributed among the first and second cranial, and by 20% in the caudal adjacent segment.

SUMMARY

Monosegmental decompression of the lumbar spinal canal does not essentially destabilise the motion segment during in vitro conditions. Regarding rigid or dynamic stabilisation, the ROM does not differ within the operated segment, but the distribution of the compensatory movement is different.

Effect of a posterior dynamic implant adjacent to a rigid spinal fixator

BACKGROUND

A slightly degenerated disc adjacent to a segment that has to be fused is sometimes instrumented with a dynamic fixator. The dynamic implant is assumed to reduce disc loads at that level and to preserve disc function, thus inhibiting the progression of degeneration.

METHODS

A three-dimensional finite element model of the lumbar spine was used to study the effect of a dynamic implant on the mechanical behavior at the corresponding level. After studying a healthy lumbar spine for comparison, a rigid fixator and a bone graft were inserted at L2/L3. Healthy and degenerated discs were assumed at the adjacent level, i.e. L3/L4. An additional paired dynamic posterior fixator was then implemented at level L3/L4. Finally, the segment with the dynamic fixator was distracted to the height of a healthy disc. The loading cases of walking, extension, flexion and axial rotation were simulated.

FINDINGS

A dynamic implant reduces intersegmental rotation for walking, extension and flexion as well as facet joint forces for axial rotation at its insertion level. Intradiscal pressure is not markedly reduced by a dynamic implant. Moreover, there are no substantial differences between the mechanical behavior of rigid and dynamic fixators.

INTERPRETATION

Our model does not predict major differences in the mechanical effects between rigid and dynamic fixators despite the extreme assumption that a dynamic implant does not transfer moments. The results do not support the assumption that disc loads are significantly reduced by a dynamic implant. For axial rotation, however, dynamic fixation devices do reduce the force in the facet joint.