IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0243771.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biomechanical analysis of a newly developed interspinous process device conjunction with interbody cage based on a finite element model

Author

Listed:
  • In-Suk Bae
  • Koang-Hum Bak
  • Hyoung-Joon Chun
  • Je Il Ryu
  • Sung-Jae Park
  • Sung-Jae Lee

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical effects of a newly developed interspinous process device (IPD), called TAU. This device was compared with another IPD (SPIRE) and the pedicle screw fixation (PSF) technique at the surgical and adjacent levels of the lumbar spine. Materials and methods: A three-dimensional finite element model analysis of the L1-S1 segments was performed to assess the biomechanical effects of the proposed IPD combined with an interbody cage. Three surgical models—two IPD models (TAU and SPIRE) and one PSF model—were developed. The biomechanical effects, such as range of motion (ROM), intradiscal pressure (IDP), disc stress, and facet loads during extension were analyzed at surgical (L3-L4) and adjacent levels (L2-L3 and L4-L5). The study analyzed biomechanical parameters assuming that the implants were perfectly fused with the lumbar spine. Results: The TAU model resulted in a 45%, 49%, 65%, and 51% decrease in the ROM at the surgical level in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, respectively, when compared to the intact model. Compared to the SPIRE model, TAU demonstrated advantages in stabilizing the surgical level, in all directions. In addition, the TAU model increased IDP at the L2-L3 and L4-L5 levels by 118.0% and 78.5% in flexion, 92.6% and 65.5% in extension, 84.4% and 82.3% in lateral bending, and 125.8% and 218.8% in axial rotation, respectively. Further, the TAU model exhibited less compensation at adjacent levels than the PSF model in terms of ROM, IDP, disc stress, and facet loads, which may lower the incidence of the adjacent segment disease (ASD). Conclusion: The TAU model demonstrated more stabilization at the surgical level than SPIRE but less stabilization than the PSF model. Further, the TAU model demonstrated less compensation at adjacent levels than the PSF model, which may lower the incidence of ASD in the long term. The TAU device can be used as an alternative system for treating degenerative lumbar disease while maintaining the physiological properties of the lumbar spine and minimizing the degeneration of adjacent segments.

Suggested Citation

  • In-Suk Bae & Koang-Hum Bak & Hyoung-Joon Chun & Je Il Ryu & Sung-Jae Park & Sung-Jae Lee, 2020. "Biomechanical analysis of a newly developed interspinous process device conjunction with interbody cage based on a finite element model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-14, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0243771
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243771
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243771
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243771&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0243771?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0243771. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.