4.5 Article

Biomechanical Analysis of Different Lumbar Interspinous Process Devices: A Finite Element Study

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 127, 期 -, 页码 E1112-E1119

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.04.051

关键词

Facet joint force; Finite element method; Interspinous process device; Intradiscal pressure; Lumbar biomechanics

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Plan [2016YFC1102002]
  2. Application Demonstration Project of Shenzhen [KJYY20170405161248988]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Recently, interspinous stabilization with the interspinous process device (IPD) has become an alternative to treat lumbar spinal stenosis. The biomechanical influence of different design features of IPDs on intradiscal pressure (IDP) and facet joint force (FJF) has not been fully understood. The aim of this study was to investigate the biomechanical performance of different IPDs using finite element (FE) method. METHODS: A FE model of the L1 -5 segments was developed and validated. Four surgical FE models were constructed by inserting different implants at the L3-4 segment (Coflex-F, DIAM, Wallis, and pedicle screw system). The 4 motion modes were simulated. RESULTS: The IPDs decreased range of motion (ROM) at the surgical level substantially in flexion and extension, hut little influence was found in lateral bending and torsion. Compared with the DIAM and Wallis devices, the Coflex-F device showed advantages in stabilizing the surgical level, especially in flexion and extension, while it increased FJF at adjacent levels by 26%-27% in extension. Among the 3 IPDs, the DIAM device exhibited the most comparable ROM, IDP, and FJF at adjacent levels compared with the intact lumbar spine. The influence of the Wallis device was between that of the Coflex-F and DIAM devices. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with rigid fixation, the IPDs demonstrated less compensation at adjacent levels in terms of ROM, IDP, and FJF, which may lower the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in the long term.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据