Biomechanical Evaluation of an Interspinous Stabilizing Device, Locker

Shim, Chan Shik; Park, Seoung Woo; Lee, Sang Ho; Lim, Tae-Hong; Chun, Kwonsoo; Kim, Daniel H.

doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181894fb1

Cited by 84 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We assessed the range-of-motion (ROM) of the intact model under different physiological motions, including flexion, extension, lateral bending and rotation with 500N of vertical axial preload and 7.5 N m of moment, which were similar to the cadaveric study. The ROM of L3-L4 and L4-L5 in our results were in good agreement with those in the cadaveric study conducted by Shim et al [24] (Fig. 2).…”

Section: Validation Of the Modelsupporting

confidence: 93%

Influence of cement-augmented pedicle screw instrumentation in an osteoporotic lumbosacral spine over the adjacent segments: a 3D finite element study

Zhou

Zeng

et al. 2020

J Orthop Surg Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To compare the effect of conventional pedicle screw (CPS) and cement-augmented pedicle screw instrumentation (CAPSI) on adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Methods: A normal male volunteer without a history of spinal disease was selected, lumbar CT data was collected, an intact L3-S1 three-dimensional finite element model was created by software including Mimics, Geomagic, and SolidWorks, and the fixation methods were performed accordingly. A common pedicle screw model and a cementaugmented pedicle screw model of L4-L5 with fusion and internal fixation were constructed. With ANSYS Workbench 17.0, a 500 N load was applied to the upper surface of L3 to simulate the weight of a human body, and a 7.5 N m moment was applied at the neutral point to simulate flexion, extension, left/right bending, left/right rotation of the spine. The peak von Mises stress of intervertebral disc and the range of motion (ROM) on the adjacent segments (L3-4 and L5-S1) were compared. Results: The validity of the intact model shows that the ROM of the model is similar to that of a cadaveric study. Compared with the intact model, CPS model and CAPSI model in all motion patterns increased the ROM of adjacent segments. The intervertebral disc stress and the ROM of adjacent segments were found to be higher in the CAPSI model than in the CPS model, especially in L3-4. Conclusion: In general, the biomechanical analysis of an osteoporotic lumbar spine showed that both CPS and CAPSI can increase the ROM and disc stresses of osteoporotic lumbar models, and compared with CPS, CAPSI is more likely to increase the potential risk of adjacent segment degeneration.

show abstract

Section: Validation Of the Modelsupporting

confidence: 93%

Influence of cement-augmented pedicle screw instrumentation in an osteoporotic lumbosacral spine over the adjacent segments: a 3D finite element study

Zhou

Zeng

et al. 2020

J Orthop Surg Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since the 1980s, non-rigid, dynamic implants have been studied in an attempt to reduce ASD. The most commonly used dynamic stabilization systems are either fixed in the pedicles, or secured between the spinous processes [2][3][4][5][6][7]. The first pedicle screw-based system was likely the Graf ligamentoplasty, which used knitted Dacron bands (INVISTA, Wichita, KS, USA) to lock the facet joints in extension and thus limit flexion [18,19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…''Dynamic'' or ''semi-rigid'' stabilization are terms used to describe instrumentation systems designed to restore stiffness to lumbar motion segments with degenerative instability that are associated with chronic low back pain. A number of dynamic stabilization implants applied via a posterior approach have been developed since the 1980s [2][3][4][5][6][7]. The most common designs are pedicle screw systems and interspinous implants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical evaluation of posterior lumbar dynamic stabilization: an in vitro comparison between Universal Clamp and Wallis systems

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatment of chronic low back pain due to degenerative lumbar spine conditions often involves fusion of the symptomatic level. A known risk of this procedure is accelerated adjacent level degeneration. Motion preservation devices have been designed to provide stabilization to the symptomatic motion segment while preserving some physiologic motion. The aim of this study was to compare the changes in relative range of motion caused as a result of application of two non-fusion, dynamic stabilization devices: the Universal Clamp (UC) and the Wallis device. Nine fresh, frozen human lumbar spines (L1-Sacrum) were tested in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation with a custom spine simulator. Specimens were tested in four conditions: (1) intact, (2) the Universal Clamp implanted at L3-4 (UC), (3) the UC with a transverse rod added (UCTR), and (4) the Wallis device implanted at L3-4. Total range of motion at 7.5 N-m was determined for each device and compared to intact condition. The UC device (with or without a transverse rod) restricted motion in all planes more than the Wallis. The greatest restriction was observed in flexion. The neutral position of the L3-4 motion segment shifted toward extension with the UC and UCTR. Motion at the adjacent levels remained similar to that observed in the intact spine for all three constructs. These results suggest that the UC device may be an appropriate dynamic stabilization device for degenerative lumbar disorders.

show abstract

“…The modified U-shape IDD is a prototype which combines a tensioning Ti wire loop with a U-shape posterior dynamic stabilizer. 6,8,27,28 A rivet, functioning as a static bolt, was subsequently added to the Coflex-F (Paradigm Spine). 18,23 After the modified U-shape IDD was implanted, ranges of flexion, extension, and right lateral bending at L3-L4 were significantly improved compared with the ROM of L3-L4 instability model.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Biomechanical Cadaveric Study of a Modified U-shaped Interspinous Distraction Device

Singhatanadgige

Tangpornprasert²,

Wangroongsub³

et al. 2014

Journal of Spinal Disorders &Amp; Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Biomechanical Evaluation of an Interspinous Stabilizing Device, Locker

Cited by 84 publications

References 28 publications

Influence of cement-augmented pedicle screw instrumentation in an osteoporotic lumbosacral spine over the adjacent segments: a 3D finite element study

Influence of cement-augmented pedicle screw instrumentation in an osteoporotic lumbosacral spine over the adjacent segments: a 3D finite element study

Biomechanical evaluation of posterior lumbar dynamic stabilization: an in vitro comparison between Universal Clamp and Wallis systems

A Biomechanical Cadaveric Study of a Modified U-shaped Interspinous Distraction Device

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About