NDLI: Interlaminar stabilization offers greater biomechanical advantage compared to interspinous stabilization after lumbar decompression: a finite element analysis

Content Provider	Springer Nature : BioMed Central
Author	Lu, Teng Lu, Yi
Abstract	Background Interlaminar stabilization and interspinous stabilization are two newer minimally invasive methods for lumbar spine stabilization, used frequently in conjunction with lumbar decompression to treat lumbar stenosis. The two methods share certain similarities, therefore, frequently being categorized together. However, the two methods offer distinct biomechanical properties, which affect their respective effectiveness and surgical success. Objective To compare the biomechanical characteristics of interlaminar stabilization after lumbar decompression (ILS) and interspinous stabilization after lumbar decompression (ISS). For comparison, lumbar decompression alone (DA) and decompression with instrumented fusion (DF) were also included in the biomechanical analysis. Methods Four finite element models were constructed, i.e., DA, DF, ISS, and ILS. To minimize device influence and focus on the biomechanical properties of different methods, Coflex device as a model system was placed at different position for the comparison of ISS and ILS. The range of motion (ROM) and disc stress peak at the surgical and adjacent levels were compared among the four surgical constructs. The stress peak of the spinous process, whole device, and device wing was compared between ISS and ILS. Results Compared with DA, the ROM and disc stress at the surgical level in ILS or ISS were much lower in extension. The ROM and disc stress at the surgical level in ILS were 1.27° and 0.36 MPa, respectively, and in ISS 1.51°and 0.55 MPa, respectively in extension. This is compared with 4.71° and 1.44 MPa, respectively in DA. ILS (2.06–4.85° and 0.37–0.98 MPa, respectively) or ISS (2.07–4.78° and 0.37–0.98 MPa, respectively) also induced much lower ROM and disc stress at the adjacent levels compared with DF (2.50–7.20° and 0.37–1.20 MPa, respectively). ILS further reduced the ROM and disc stress at the surgical level by 8% and 25%, respectively, compared to ISS. The stress peak of the spinous process in ILS was significantly lower than that in ISS (13.93–101 MPa vs. 31.08–172.5 MPa). In rotation, ILS yielded a much lower stress peak in the instrumentation wing than ISS (128.7 MPa vs. 222.1 MPa). Conclusion ILS and ISS partly address the issues of segmental instability in DA and hypermobility and overload at the adjacent levels in DF. ILS achieves greater segmental stability and results in a lower disc stress, compared to ISS. In addition, ILS reduces the risk of spinous process fracture and device failure.
Related Links	https://josr-online.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s13018-020-01812-5.pdf
Ending Page	12
Page Count	12
Starting Page	1
File Format	HTM / HTML
DOI	10.1186/s13018-020-01812-5
Journal	Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
Issue Number	1
Volume Number	15
Language	English
Publisher	BioMed Central
Publisher Date	2020-07-29
Access Restriction	Open
Subject Keyword	Orthopedics Surgical Orthopedics Lumbar spinal stenosis Finite element Biomechanics Surgical decompression Fusion Interlaminar stabilization Interspinous stabilization Coflex device Complication
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Surgery Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
Journal Impact Factor	2.8/2023
5-Year Journal Impact Factor	3/2023

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Therapeutic sustainability and durability of coflex interlaminar stabilization after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a four year assessment.

A novel strategy of non-fusion instrumentation with coflex interlaminar stabilization after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.

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

Five-year radiological outcomes between decompression alone and decompression with an interlaminar device for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Survivorship of coflex Interlaminar-Interspinous Implant.

Evaluation of Decompression and Interlaminar Stabilization Compared with Decompression and Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: 5-year Follow-up of a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Therapeutic sustainability and durability of coflex interlaminar stabilization after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a four year assessment

The Optimal Insertion Position of the Lumbar Interspinous Dynamic Stabilization Device: A Biomechanical Evaluation

Interspinous implants to treat spinal stenosis.

Interlaminar stabilization offers greater biomechanical advantage compared to interspinous stabilization after lumbar decompression: a finite element analysis

Similar Documents

Therapeutic sustainability and durability of coflex interlaminar stabilization after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a four year assessment.

A novel strategy of non-fusion instrumentation with coflex interlaminar stabilization after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.

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

Five-year radiological outcomes between decompression alone and decompression with an interlaminar device for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Survivorship of coflex Interlaminar-Interspinous Implant.

Evaluation of Decompression and Interlaminar Stabilization Compared with Decompression and Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: 5-year Follow-up of a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Therapeutic sustainability and durability of coflex interlaminar stabilization after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a four year assessment

The Optimal Insertion Position of the Lumbar Interspinous Dynamic Stabilization Device: A Biomechanical Evaluation

Interspinous implants to treat spinal stenosis.

Interlaminar stabilization offers greater biomechanical advantage compared to interspinous stabilization after lumbar decompression: a finite element analysis