Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Jun;39(6):565-72.
doi: 10.1007/s00132-009-1587-3.

[Biomechanics of interspinous spacers]

[Article in German]
Affiliations
Comparative Study

[Biomechanics of interspinous spacers]

[Article in German]
H-J Wilke et al. Orthopade. 2010 Jun.

Abstract

Interspinous spacers are commonly 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. This paper summarizes several in vitro studies, which compared four different interspinous implants - Coflex, Wallis, DIAM, and X-STOP - in terms of their three-dimensional primary stability, the intradiscal pressure, and stability after cyclic loading. 24 human lumbar spine specimens were divided into four equal groups and tested with pure moments in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation: intact, after decompression with hemifacetectomy, and after implantation. Implantation had similar biomechanical effects with all four implants. In extension, they overcompensated the instability caused by the defect and restricted extension to about 50% compared to the intact state. In contrast, in flexion, lateral bending, and axial rotation the values of the range of motion stayed similar compared to the defective state. Intradiscal pressure after implantation was similar to that of the intact specimens in flexion, lateral bending, and axial rotation but much smaller during extension; 50,000 load cycles increased the range of motion in all motion planes by no more than 20%, but in extension motion this was still less than in the intact state.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

References

    1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Aug 15;22(16):1819-25; discussion 1826-7 - PubMed
    1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Jan 15;25(2):197-203; discussions 203-4 - PubMed
    1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Oct 1;28(19):2192-7 - PubMed
    1. Spine J. 2006 Nov-Dec;6(6):714-22 - PubMed
    1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Apr 15;30(8):903-7 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources