Spinous process plate (S-plate) fixation after posterior interbody fusion for lumbar canal stenosis due to spondylolisthesis

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masato Tomii ◽  
Yasunobu Itoh ◽  
Shinichi Numazawa ◽  
Kazuo Watanabe ◽  
Hiroshi Nakagawa
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Plate Fixation ◽  
Spinous Process ◽  
Lumbar Canal Stenosis ◽  
Canal Stenosis

Biomechanics of lateral lumbar interbody fusion constructs with lateral and posterior plate fixation

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guy R. Fogel ◽  
Rachit D. Parikh ◽  
Stephen I. Ryu ◽  
Alexander W. L. Turner
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Plate Fixation ◽  
Spinous Process ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Interbody Cage ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Lateral Plate ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Supplemental Fixation

Object Lumbar interbody fusion is indicated in the treatment of degenerative conditions. Laterally inserted interbody cages significantly decrease range of motion (ROM) compared with other cages. Supplemental fixation options such as lateral plates or spinous process plates have been shown to provide stability and to reduce morbidity. The authors of the current study investigate the in vitro stability of the interbody cage with a combination of lateral and spinous process plate fixation and compare this method to the established bilateral pedicle screw fixation technique. Methods Ten L1–5 specimens were evaluated using multidirectional nondestructive moments (± 7.5 N·m), with a custom 6 degrees-of-freedom spine simulator. Intervertebral motions (ROM) were measured optoelectronically. Each spine was evaluated under the following conditions at the L3–4 level: intact; interbody cage alone (stand-alone); cage supplemented with lateral plate; cage supplemented with ipsilateral pedicle screws; cage supplemented with bilateral pedicle screws; cage supplemented with spinous process plate; and cage supplemented with a combination of lateral plate and spinous process plate. Intervertebral rotations were calculated, and ROM data were normalized to the intact ROM data. Results The stand-alone laterally inserted interbody cage significantly reduced ROM with respect to the intact state in flexion-extension (31.6% intact ROM, p < 0.001), lateral bending (32.5%, p < 0.001), and axial rotation (69.4%, p = 0.002). Compared with the stand-alone condition, addition of a lateral plate to the interbody cage did not significantly alter the ROM in flexion-extension (p = 0.904); however, it was significantly decreased in lateral bending and axial rotation (p < 0.001). The cage supplemented with a lateral plate was not statistically different from bilateral pedicle screws in lateral bending (p = 0.579). Supplemental fixation using a spinous process plate was not significantly different from bilateral pedicle screws in flexion-extension (p = 0.476). The combination of lateral plate and spinous process plate was not statistically different from the cage supplemented with bilateral pedicle screws in all the loading modes (p ≥ 0.365). Conclusions A combination of lateral and spinous process plate fixation to supplement a laterally inserted interbody cage helps achieve rigidity in all motion planes similar to that achieved with bilateral pedicle screws.

Lumbar Canal Stenosis-A Study of Spinous Process Osteotomy in Posterior Decompression

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 176
Author(s):  
Manish Dwivedi ◽  
Vikas Sawla ◽  
Atul Varshney ◽  
Apoorv Acharya
Keyword(s):  
Spinous Process ◽  
Posterior Decompression ◽  
Lumbar Canal Stenosis ◽  
Canal Stenosis

scholarly journals PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF VERTEBRAL CANAL DECOMPRESSION BY SPINOUS PROCESS SPLITTING

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-235
Author(s):  
THIAGO DANTAS MATOS ◽  
YONY OSORIO GARCIA ◽  
HERTON RODRIGO TAVARES COSTA ◽  
HELTON LUIZ APARECIDO DEFINO
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Spinous Process ◽  
Lower Limbs ◽  
Radiographic Evaluation ◽  
Splitting Technique ◽  
Lumbar Canal Stenosis ◽  
Preliminary Results ◽  
Canal Stenosis ◽  
Lower Limb Pain ◽  
The Mean

ABSTRACT Objective Considering that the technique of spinous process splitting has been advocated as a less invasive treatment of lumbar stenosis, the objective of this study was to evaluate the preliminary results of this technique in the surgical treatment of lumbar canal stenosis. Methods Twenty patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis who underwent surgical treatment for lumbar canal decompression with the spinous process splitting technique were assessed in the preoperative period and on postoperative days 1, 7 and 30 for VAS for lower back and lower limbs pain and radiographic evaluation of the operated segment. Results The mean visual analogue scale score for lumbar pain in the preoperative assessment was 4.2 ± 3.37 and 0.85 ± 0.88, 1.05 ± 1.19 and 1.15 ± 1.04 after 1, 7 and 30 postoperative days, respectively. The mean VAS score for lower limb pain was 8 ± 1.72 preoperatively, and 0.7 ± 1.13, 0.85 ± 1.04, and 1.05 ± 1 after 1, 7, and 30 postoperative days, respectively. There were no radiographic signs of instability of the vertebral segment operated in the radiographic evaluation. Conclusions Decompression of the lumbar canal through the spinous process splitting technique in patients with lumbar canal stenosis had good immediate and short-term results in relation to low back and lower limbs pain. Level of evidence IV; Therapeutic Study.

Comparison of CD HORIZON SPIRE spinous process plate stabilization and pedicle screw fixation after anterior lumbar interbody fusion

2006 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy C. Wang ◽  
Regis W. Haid ◽  
Jay S. Miller ◽  
James C. Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Plate Fixation ◽  
Spinous Process ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Open Approach ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Hardware Failure ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss

Object The authors present the early clinical results obtained in patients who underwent SPIRE spinous process plate fixation following anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). Methods Between May 2003 and January 2005, 32 patients underwent titanium cage and bone morphogenetic protein–augmented ALIF and subsequent SPIRE (21 cases) or bilateral pedicle screw (BPS; 11 cases) fixation. Pedicle screws were implanted using either the open approach (three cases) or using a tubular retractor (eight cases). Patients’ charts were reviewed for operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), hospital length of stay (LOS), and evidence of pseudarthrosis or hardware failure. In SPIRE plate–treated patients, the median EBL (75 ml) was lower than in BPS-treated patients (open BPS [150 ml]; tubular BPS [125 ml]). The median operative time in SPIRE plate–treated patients was also shorter (164 minutes compared with 239 and 250 minutes in the open and tubular BPS, respectively). The median LOS was 3 days for both the SPIRE and tubular BPS groups, but 4 days in the open BPS group. There were no instances of major surgery-induced complication, pseudarthrosis, or hardware failure during mean follow-up periods of 5.5, 7.2, and 4.9 months in the SPIRE, open PS, and tubular BPS groups, respectively. Conclusions The SPIRE plate is easy to implant and is associated with minimal operative risk. Compared with BPS/rod constructs, SPIRE plate fixation leads to less EBL and shorter operative time, without an increase in the rate of pseudarthrosis. Hospital LOS was also shorter in SPIRE plate–treated patients, which is consistent with the goals of minimal access spinal technologies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document