Can a modified interspinous spacer prevent instability in axial rotation and lateral bending? A biomechanical in vitro study resulting in a new idea

• Published in: Clinical biomechanics (Bristol) Vol. 23; no. 2; pp. 242 - 247
• Main Authors: Kettler, A, Drumm, J, Heuer, F, Haeussler, K, Mack, C, Claes, L, Wilke, H.-J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01-02-2008
• Subjects: Biomechanical Phenomena; Biomechanics; Cadaver; Humans; In Vitro Techniques; Interbody fusion; Interspinous spacer; Lumbar spine; Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery; Orthopedic Fixation Devices; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; Prostheses and Implants; Prosthesis Design; Range of Motion, Articular; Rotation; Stability; Statistics, Nonparametric; Strain; Stress, Mechanical; Interbody fusion; Biomechanics; Stability; Lumbar spine; Interspinous spacer; Strain
• ISSN: 0268-0033; 1879-1271
• DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.09.004

Abstract Background Interspinous spacers are mainly used to treat lumbar spinal stenosis and facet arthrosis. Biomechanically, they stabilise in extension but do not compensate instability in axial rotation and lateral bending. It would therefore be desirable to have an interspinous spacer available, which provides for more stability also in these two planes. At the same time, the intervertebral disc should not completely be unloaded to keep it viable. To meet these requirements, a new version of the Coflex interspinous implant was developed, called “Coflex rivet”, which can be more rigidly attached to the spinous processes. The aim was to investigate whether this new implant compensates instability but still allows some load to be transferred through the disc. Methods Twelve human lumbar spine segments were equally divided into two groups, one for Coflex rivet and one for the original Coflex implant. The specimens were tested for flexibility under pure moment loads in the three main planes. These tests were carried out in the intact condition, after creation of a destabilising defect and after insertion of either of the two implants. Before implantation, the interspinous spacers were equipped with strain gauges to measure the load transfer. Findings Compared to the defect condition, both implants had a strong stabilising effect in extension ( P < 0.05). Coflex rivet also strongly stabilised in flexion and to a smaller degree in lateral bending and axial rotation ( P < 0.05). In contrast, in these three loading directions, the original Coflex implant could not compensate the destabilising effect of the defect ( P > 0.05). The bending moments transferred through the implants were highest in extension and flexion. Yet, they were no more than 1.2 N m in median. Interpretation The new Coflex rivet seems be a suitable option to compensate instability. Its biomechanical characteristics might even make it suitable as an adjunct to fusion, which would be a new indication for this type of implant.