Skip to main content
Log in

Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Interspinous implants are 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. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare four different interspinous implants––Colfex, Wallis, Diam and X-Stop––in terms of their three-dimensional flexibility and the intradiscal pressure. Twenty-four human lumbar spine specimens were divided into four equal groups and tested with pure moments in flexion/extension, lateral bending and axial rotation: (1) intact, (2) defect, (3) after implantation. Range of motion and the intradiscal pressure were determined.In each implant-group the defect caused an increase in range of motion by about 8% in lateral bending to 18% in axial rotation. Implantation had similar effects with all four implants. In extension, Coflex, Wallis, Diam, and X-Stop all overcompensated the instability caused by the defect and allowed about 50% of the range of motion of the intact state. In contrast, in flexion, lateral bending and axial rotation the values of the range of motion stayed about the values of the defect state. Similarly the intradiscal pressure after implantation was similar to that of the intact specimens in flexion, lateral bending and axial rotation but much smaller during extension. All tested interspinous implants had a similar effect on the flexibility: they strongly stabilized and reduced the intradiscal pressure in extension, but had almost no effect in flexion, lateral bending and axial rotation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ, Magnaes B, Abdelnoor M, Lilleas F (2000) Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management?: A prospective 10-year study. Spine 25(11):1424–1435 (discussion 1435–1436)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Christie SD, Song JK, Fessler RG (2005) Dynamic interspinous process technology. Spine 30(16 Suppl):S73–S78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fujiwara A, Tamai K, An HS, Kurihashi T, Lim TH, Yoshida H, Saotome K (2000) The relationship between disc degeneration, facet joint osteoarthritis, and stability of the degenerative lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord 13(5):444–500

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Guehring T, Unglaub F, Lorenz H, Omlor G, Wilke HJ, Kroeber MW (2006) Intradiscal pressure measurements in normal discs, compressed discs and compressed discs treated with axial posterior disc distraction: an experimental study on the rabbit lumbar spine model. Eur Spine J 15(5):597–604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Höjer S, Krantz M, Ekström L, Kaigle A, Holm S (1999) A microstructure based fiberoptic pressure sensor for measurements in lumbar intervertebral discs. Proc SPIE (in revision) 3570:115–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kettler A, Liakos L, Haegele B, and Wilke HJ (2007) Are the spines of calf, pig and sheep suitable models for pre-clinical implant tests? Eur Spine J 16(12):2186–2192

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Lindsey DP, Swanson KE, Fuchs P, Hsu KY, Zucherman JF, Yerby SA (2003) The effects of an interspinous implant on the kinematics of the instrumented and adjacent levels in the lumbar spine. Spine 28(19):2192–2197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Minns RJ, Walsh WK (1997) Preliminary design and experimental studies of a novel soft implant for correcting sagittal plane instability in the lumbar spine. Spine 22(16):1819–1825 (discussion 1826–1827)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, Dipl I, Claes L, Wilke HJ (2003) Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech 16(4):418–423

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Simotas AC, Dorey FJ, Hansraj KK, Cammisa F Jr (2000) Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical and outcome results and a 3-year survivorship analysis. Spine 25(2):197–203 (discussions 203–204)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Swanson KE, Lindsey DP, Hsu KY, Zucherman JF, Yerby SA (2003) The effects of an interspinous implant on intervertebral disc pressures. Spine 28(1):26–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, Deyo R (1992) Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine 17(1):1–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Whitesides TE Jr (2003) The effect of an interspinous implant on intervertebral disc pressures. Spine 28(16):1906–1907 (author reply 1907–1908)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L (1998) Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J 7(2):148–154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Wilke HJ, Neef P, Caimi M, Hoogland T, Claes LE (1999) New in vivo measurements of pressures in the intervertebral disc in daily life. Spine 24(8):755–762

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wilke HJ, Rohlmann F, Neidlinger-Wilke C, Werner K, Claes L, Kettler A (2006) Validity and interobserver agreement of a new radiographic grading system for intervertebral disc degeneration: part I. Lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 15(6):720–730

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wiseman CM, Lindsey DP, Fredrick AD, Yerby SA (2005) The effect of an interspinous process implant on facet loading during extension. Spine 30(8):903–907

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zindrick MR, Wiltse LL, Widell EH, Thomas JC, Holland WR, Field BT, Spencer CW (1986) A biomechanical study of intrapeduncular screw fixation in the lumbosacral spine. Clin Orthop 203:99–112

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge Paradigm Spine for financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hans-Joachim Wilke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wilke, HJ., Drumm, J., Häussler, K. et al. Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J 17, 1049–1056 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0657-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0657-2

Keywords

Navigation