Biomechanical feasibility of semi-rigid stabilization and semi-rigid lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element study

Background Semi-rigid lumbar fusion offers a compromise between pedicle screw-based rigid fixation and non-instrumented lumbar fusion. However, the use of semi-rigid interspinous stabilization (SIS) with interspinous spacer and ligamentoplasty and semi-rigid posterior instrumentation (SPI) to assist interbody cage as fusion constructs remained controversial. The purpose of this study is to investigate the biomechanical properties of semi-rigidly stabilized lumbar fusion using SIS or SPI and their effect on adjacent levels using finite element (FE) method. Method Eight FE models were constructed to simulate the lumbosacral spine. In the non-fusion constructs, semi-rigid stabilization with (i) semi-rigid interspinous spacer and artificial ligaments (PD-SIS), and (ii) PI with semi-rigid rods were simulated (PD + SPI). For fusion constructs, the spinal models were implanted with (iii) PEEK cage only (Cage), (iv) PEEK cage and SIS (Cage+SIS), (v) PEEK cage and SPI (Cage+SPI), (vi) PEEK cage and rigid PI (Cage+PI). Result The comparison of flexion-extension range of motion (ROM) in the operated level showed the difference between Cage+SIS, Cage+SPI, and Cage+PI was less than 0.05 degree. In axial rotation, ROM of Cage+SIS were greater than Cage+PI by 0.81 degree. In the infrajacent level, while Cage+PI increased the ROM by 24.1, 27,7, 25.9, and 10.3% and Cage+SPI increased the ROM by 26.1, 30.0, 27.1, and 10.8% in flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation respectively, Cage+SIS only increased the ROM by 3.6, 2.8, and 11.2% in flexion, extension, and lateral bending and reduced the ROM by 1.5% in axial rotation. The comparison of the von Mises stress showed that SIS reduced the adjacent IVD stress by 9.0%. The simulation of the strain energy showed a difference between constructs less than 7.9%, but all constructs increased the strain energy in the infradjacent level. Conclusion FE simulation showed semi-rigid fusion constructs including Cage+SIS and Cage+SPI can provide sufficient stabilization and flexion-extension ROM reduction at the fusion level. In addition, SIS-assisted fusion resulted in less hypermobility and less von Mises stress in the adjacent levels. However, SIS-assisted fusion had a disadvantage of less ROM reduction in lateral bending and axial rotation. Further clinical studies are warranted to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of semi-rigid fusions.

Improvement in Neurogenic Pain with Epidural Injections Following Interspinous Spacer Implantation in Patients with Lumbar Stenosis: A Case Series

Background: Lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication can be a debilitating condition, affecting quality of life. Interspinous spacer implantation is a minimally invasive procedure for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication and associated symptoms by minimizing spinal extension and therefore neural compression. Case Presentation: This case series presents 4 cases of patients with multilevel stenosis, most radiographically severe in the lumbar region, all who received interspinous spacers at L3-4 and L4-5 after minimal improvement in symptoms with conservative management including epidural injections. In all 4 cases, patients reported improved standing and gait but limited improvement in pain and overall function after interspinous spacer implantation. Each patient underwent repeat epidural injections at or below the level of the interspinous spacer with significant improvement in pain for up to 6 months. Conclusion: Our conclusion is that either postspacer epidural injections helped reduce inflammation associated with the implantation procedure, or the spacer maintained an open space to allow the injectate to permeate areas with the most stenosis and help reduce inflammation and therefore pain. Key words: Epidural injection, interspinous process decompression, interspinous spacer, interspinous spacer implant, low back pain, lumbar spinal stenosis, neurogenic claudication, spinal stenosis

Cost-effectiveness and Safety of Interspinous Process Decompression (Superion)

Objective There are several treatment options for patients suffering from lumbar spinal stenosis, including surgical and conservative care. Interspinous spacer decompression using the Superion device offers a less invasive procedure for patients who fail conservative treatment before traditional decompression surgery. This review assesses the current cost-effectiveness, safety, and performance of lumbar spinal stenosis treatment modalities compared with the Superion interspinous spacer procedure. Methods EMBASE and PubMed were searched to find studies reporting on the cost-effectiveness, safety, and performance of conservative treatment, including medicinal treatments, epidural injections, physical therapy, and alternative methods, as well as surgical treatment, including laminectomy, laminectomy with fusion, and interspinous spacer decompression. Results were supplemented with manual searches. Results Despite substantial costs, persistent conservative treatment (>12 weeks) of lumbar spinal stenosis showed only minimal improvement in pain and functionality. When conservative treatment fails, surgery is more effective than continuing conservative treatment. Lumbar laminectomy with fusion has considerably greater cost than laminectomy alone, as the length of hospital stay increases, the costs for implants are substantial, and complications increase. Although laminectomy and the Superion have comparable outcomes, the Superion implant is positioned percutaneously. This approach may minimize the direct and indirect costs of outpatient rehabilitation and absenteeism, respectively. Conclusions Superion interspinous lumbar decompression is a minimally invasive procedure for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who have failed conservative treatment. Compared with extending conservative treatment or traditional spinal surgery, interspinous lumbar decompression reduces the direct and indirect costs associated with lumbar spinal stenosis.