Lumbar spine Interspinous devices Biomechanics Finite element analysis PubMed

Transcription

1 Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research September 23, 2016 Vol.20, No.39 ( ). [J] (39): DOI: /j.issn ORCID: ( ) (PubMed SpringerLink CNKI ) :R318 :A : (2016) CNKI Lumbar spine Interspinous devices Biomechanics Finite element analysis PubMed SpringerLink (NCET ) ISSN CN /R CODEN: ZLKHAH 5919

2 . Xiong Yang, Studying for master s degree, Department of Orthopedics, Dongzhimen Hospital Affiliated to Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing , China Corresponding author: Yu Xing, Professor, Doctoral supervisor, Chief physician, Department of Orthopedics, Dongzhimen Hospital Affiliated to Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing , China Research progress of biomechanics and finite element analysis of lumbar interspinous devices Xiong Yang, Yu Xing (Department of Orthopedics, Dongzhimen Hospital Affiliated to Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing , China) Abstract BACKGROUND: The lumbar interspinous device, as a kind of non-fusion technology has been extensively applied in the clinic and exerts superiority in biomechanics compared with the traditional fusion technology. With the development of prosthesis design and impanation technology, it reveals a better application prospect. OBJECTIVE: To review the biomechanics and finite element analysis of lumbar interspinous devices. METHODS: The first author retrieved the databases of CNKI, WanFang, PubMed and SpringerLink using the keywords of lumbar spine, interspinous devices, biomechanics, finite element analysis in Chinese and English, respectively. Researches related to the biomechanics and finite element analysis of lumbar interspinous devices were included and repeated researches were excluded. A total of 44 literatures were enrolled for review, including 8 Chinese and 36 English literatures. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) Biomechanically, several interpinous devices, which are commonly used in the clinic, can increase the stability of the implanted segment in sagittal alignment by limiting the range of flexion-extension, with no significant change in lateral bending and axial rotation. (2) Few studies analyze the influence of the implant size and placement on the implanted segment and on the adjacent segments. (3) Through the stress nephogram, three-dimension finite element analysis can intuitively analyze the changes of the stress distribution in the intervertebral disc, isthmus and facet joints before and after implantation. Both biomechanical studies and finite element analysis indicate that interspinous devices can share the load of the disc and facet joints, and at the same time, make no effect on the range of motion and stress of the adjacent segment. (4) In conclusion, the short-term biomechanical advantage of the interspinous devices is obvious, but further studies are needed. The finite element analysis can simulate different body physical environment, and can analyze mechanical distribution changes after implantation, which is an effective way to evaluate the mechanical mechanism of the interspinous devices. Subject headings: Lumbar Vertebrae; Biomechanics; Finite Element Analysis; Stress, Mechanical; Tissue Engineering Funding: the New Century Talent Supporting Project of Education Ministry in 2012, No. NCET Cite this article: Xiong Y, Yu X. Research progress of biomechanics and finite element analysis of lumbar interspinous devices. Zhongguo Zuzhi Gongcheng Yanjiu. 2016;20(39): Introduction [1] 5920 Wallis X-Stop ExtenSure ASPEN DIAM Coflex StenoFix [2] [3-4] P.O. Box 10002, Shenyang

3 . 2.5 (Cobb > 25 ) [5-7] 1 Data and methods Lumbar spine Interspinous devices Biomechanics Finite element analysis PubMed ( gov/pubmed/) SpringerLink ( com/) CNKI ( ( [1-9] [10-29] [30-33] [34-44] 1 CNKI Lumbar spine Interspinous devices Biomechanics Finite element analysis PubMed SpringerLink Results Wallis Wallis Sénégas [8] Wallis X-Stop X-Stop FDA [9] ISSN CN /R CODEN: ZLKHAH 5921

4 Coflex Coflex U U ASPEN ASPEN DIAM DIAM StenoFix StenoFix Coflex w w Wallis 2007 Lafage [10] Wallis 3 (L 4/5 ) Wallis Wallis Wallis Ilharreborde [11] 2011 L 3/4 Wallis 13.8% 6.2% 0.4% X-Stop Lindsey [12] X-Stop X-Stop L 2 52 Richards [13] X-Stop 18% 10% 25%( 106 mm mm 2 ) 41% X-Stop Lee [14] 10 X-Stop MRI X-Stop 36.5%( 22 mm 2 ) 22% Siddiqui [15] 26 MRI X-Stop 20% 20% 32% Wan [16] X-Stop 32.9%(32 mm 2 ) 24.4% DIAM Phillips [17] DIAM DIAM ( ) ( )Anasetti [18] DIAM(10 mm 14 mm) DIAM 14 mm ( ) 5922 P.O. Box 10002, Shenyang

5 Coflex Tsai [19] Coflex Coflex Coflex Coflex Kettler [20] Coflex Coflex Rivet( Coflex ) Coflex Rivet [21] Coflex Coflex U 5mm ASPEN Karahalios [22] ASPEN ASPEN ASPEN ASPEN ASPEN Kaibara [23] ASPEN ASPEN ASPEN ASPEN ASPEN Techy [24] ASPEN ASPEN 74% 77%55% 42% ASPEN Gonzalez-Blohm [25] ASPEN ASPEN ASPEN Wilke [26] 4 (Coflex Wallis DIAM X-Stop) Coflex DIAM X-Stop Wallis 4 Hartmann [27] Aperius In-Space X-Stop Coflex 4 ISSN CN /R CODEN: ZLKHAH 5923

6 . 4 4 Hirsch [28] In-Space X-Stop Wallis DIAM Schilling [29] Coflex Wallis DIAM InterActiv 4 50% Wallis [30] Wallis Wallis Wallis Wallis X-Stop [31] X-Stop L 4/5 L 5 L DIAM [32] DIAM DIAM DIAM DIAM Coflex [33] 2010 Coflex Coflex Coflex Wallis3 UniWallis UniWallis In-Space Superion 3 Discussion and conclusions 5924 P.O. Box 10002, Shenyang

7 . [34] [35] 46% 400% ISSN CN /R CODEN: ZLKHAH 5925

8 . [36-41] 11.6% 38% 4.6% 85% % [42] Tuschel [43] 30.4% CT % 5 6 [44] [25] [4] CNKI P.O. Box 10002, Shenyang

9 . ( ) 4 References [1] Kaner T, Ozer AF. Dynamic stabilization for challenging lumbar degenerative diseases of the spine: a review of the literature. Adv Orthop. 2013,doi: /2013/ [2],,. [J].,2014,30(8): [3] Kabir SM, Gupta SR, Casey AT. Lumbar interspinous spacers: a systematic review of clinical and biomechanical evidence. Spine. 2010;35(25): E1499-E1506. [4] Gazzeri R, Galarza M, Alfieri A. Controversies about interspinous process devices in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases: past, present, and future. Bio Med Rese Int. 2014, doi: /2014/ [5] Bonaldi G, Brembilla C, Cianfoni A. Minimally-invasive posterior lumbar stabilization for degenerative low back pain and sciatica. A review. Eur J Radiol. 2015; 84(5): [6] Alfieri A, Gazzeri R, Prell J, et al. Role of lumbar interspinous distraction on the neural elements. Neurosurg Rev. 2012;35(4): [7] Rolfe KW, Zucherman JF, Kondrashov DG, et al. Scoliosis and interspinous decompression with the X-STOP: prospective minimum 1-year outcomes in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J. 2010;10(11): [8] Sénégas J. Mechanical supplementation by non-rigid fixation in degenerative intervertebral lumbar segments: the Wallis system//arthroplasty of the Spine. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004: [9],. [J].,2010,24(3): [10] Lafage V, Gangnet N, Sénégas J, et al. New interspinous implant evaluation using an in vitro biomechanical study combined with a finite-element analysis. Spine. 2007;32(16): [11] Ilharreborde B, Shaw MN, Berglund LJ, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of posterior lumbar dynamic stabilization: an in vitro comparison between Universal Clamp and Wallis systems. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(2): [12] Lindsey DP, Swanson KE, Fuchs P, et al. The effects of an interspinous implant on the kinematics of the instrumented and adjacent levels in the lumbar spine. Spine. 2003;28(19): [13] Richards JC, Majumdar S, Lindsey DP, et al. The treatment mechanism of an interspinous process implant for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication. Spine. 2005;30(7): [14] Lee J, Hida K, Seki T, et al. An interspinous process distractor(x-stop)for lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients: preliminary experiences in 10 consecutive cases. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004;17(1): [15] Siddiqui M, Karadimas E, Nicol M, et al. Influence of X-Stop on neural foramina and spinal canal area in spinal stenosis. Spine. 2006;31(25): [16] Wan Z, Wang S, Koz nek M, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of the X-stop device for surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012; 25(7): 374. [17] Phillips FM, Voronov LI, Gaitanis IN, et al. Biomechanics of posterior dynamic stabilizing device(diam) after facetectomy and discectomy. Spine J. 2006;6(6): [18] Anasetti F, Galbusera F, Aziz HN, et al. Spine stability after implantation of an interspinous device: an in vitro and finite element biomechanical study: Laboratory investigation J Neurosurg. 2010;13(5): [19] Tsai KJ, Murakami H, Lowery GL, et al. A biomechanical evaluation of an interspinous device (Coflex device) used to stabilize lumbar spine. Paradigm Spine J. 2006;1: 14. [20] Kettler A, Drumm J, Heuer F, et al. Can a modified interspinous spacer prevent instability in axial rotation and lateral bending? A biomechanical in vitro study resulting in a new idea. Clin Biomech. 2008;23(2): [21],,,. Coflex [J].,2014,24(10): [22] Karahalios DG, Kaibara T, Porter RW, et al. Biomechanics of a lumbar interspinous anchor with anterior lumbar interbody fusion: laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg. 2010;12(4): [23] Kaibara T, Karahalios DG, Porter RW, et al. Biomechanics of a lumbar interspinous anchor with transforaminal lumbar interbody fixation. World Neurosurg. 2010;73(5): [24] Techy F, Mageswaran P, Colbrunn RW, et al. Properties of an interspinous fixation device (ISD) in lumbar fusion constructs: a biomechanical study. Spine J. 2013;13(5): ISSN CN /R CODEN: ZLKHAH 5927

10 . [25] Gonzalez-Blohm SA, Doulgeris JJ, Aghayev K, et al. Biomechanical analysis of an interspinous fusion device as a stand-alone and as supplemental fixation to posterior expandable interbody cages in the lumbar spine: Laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg. 2014; 20(2): [26] Wilke HJ, Drumm J, Häussler K, et al. Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J. 2008; 17(8): [27] Hartmann F, Dietz SO, Hely H, et al. Biomechanical effect of different interspinous devices on lumbar spinal range of motion under preload conditions. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;131(7): [28] Hirsch C, Breque C, Ragot S, et al. Biomechanical study of dynamic changes in L4 L5 foramen surface area in flexion and extension after implantation of four interspinous process devices. Orthop Traumatol Surg Rese. 2015;101(2): [29] Schilling C, Pfeiffer M, Grupp TM, et al. The effect of design parameters of interspinous implants on kinematics and load bearing: an in vitro study. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(4): [30],,,. Wallis [J].,2012,16(13) [31],,,. [J].,2008,23(4): [32]. [D] [33]. [D].,2010. [34],,,. [J].,2015,14(3): [35] Zheng S, Yao Q, Cheng L, et al. The effects of a new shape-memory alloy interspinous process device on the distribution of intervertebral disc pressures in vitro. J Biomed Res. 2010;24(2): [36] Bowers C, Amini A, Dailey AT, et al. Dynamic interspinous process stabilization: review of complications associated with the X-Stop device. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28(6): E8. [37] Barbagallo GM, Corbino LA, Olindo G, et al. The sandwich phenomenon : a rare complication in adjacent, double-level X-stop surgery: report of three cases and review of the literature. Spine. 2010;35(3): E96-E100. [38] Liu HY, Gu AQ, Zhu ZQ, et al. The efficacy and complication analysis of interspinous dynamic device (Wallis) in patients of degenerative lumbar disease. Zhonghua wai ke za zhi. 2012;50(9): [39] Kaulhausen T, Zarghooni K, Stein G, et al. The interspinous spacer: a clinicoanatomical investigation using plastination. Minim Invasive Surg. 2012;2012: [40] Maida G, Marcati E, Sarubbo S. Heterotopic ossification in vertebral interlaminar/interspinous instrumentation: report of a case. Case Rep Surg. 2012;2012: [41] Barz T, Lange J, Melloh M, et al. Histomorphometric and radiographical changes after lumbar implantation of the PEEK nonfusion interspinous device in the BB. 4S rat model. Spine. 2013;38(5): E263-E269. [42] Epstein N. A review of interspinous fusion devices: High complication, reoperation rates, and costs with poor outcomes. Surg Neurol Int. 2012; 3: 7. [43] Tuschel A, Chavanne A, Eder C, et al. Implant survival analysis and failure modes of the X-Stop interspinous distraction device. Spine. 2013;38(21): [44] Kim DH, Tantorski M, Shaw J, et al. Occult spinous process fractures associated with interspinous process spacers. Spine. 2011;36(16): E1080-E P.O. Box 10002, Shenyang