Biomechanical characteristics of a novel interspinous distraction fusion device BacFuse for the repair of lumbar degenerative disease

doi:10.12307/2023.912

Abstract

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Interspinous distraction fusion device BacFuse was used for the management of lumbar degenerative disease and obtained good clinical efficacy in recent years. However, the related biomechanical study was lacking.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the related biomechanical characteristics of BacFuse, a novel interspinous distraction fusion device, which was used in lumbar degenerative disease.
METHODS: After constructing the goat spinal models (L1-L6), they were grouped into four groups based on different simulated surgeries: the control group, the BacFuse group (L3/4), the screw-rod fixation group (L3/4) and the Topping-off group (L3/4 screw-rod fixation + L2/3 BacFuse fixation). The goat lumbar spine surgical model was assembled into a biomechanical testing system. A biomechanical machine was used for mechanical loading, simulating lumbar spine movement of flexion, extension, lateral flexion and rotation with a 4 Nm moment. A visual tracking system was used for positioning and capturing. Finally, mechanical and optical calibration was completed to calculate the range of motion of the L2/3, L3/4 and L4/5 segments.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) Compared with the control group, the range of motion of the L3/4 segment in the BacFuse group decreased 27.27%, 70%, 38.1% and 23.08% in the flexion, extension, lateral bending and rotation directions, respectively (P < 0.05). The range of motion of L3/4 segment in the screw-rod fixation group decreased 72.73%, 80%, 71.43% and 73.08% in the flexion, extension, lateral bending and rotation directions, respectively (P < 0.05). (2) Compared with the control group, the range of motion of the adjacent segment L2/3 increased by 33.33%, 25% and 23.81% in the extension, lateral bending and rotation directions, respectively in the BacFuse group (P < 0.05), with no significant change in flexion. In the screw-rod fixation group, there was a 50%, 44.44%, 50% and 58.96% increase in the adjacent segment L2/3 in the flexion, extension, lateral calibration and rotation directions, respectively (P < 0.05). (3) Compared with the control group, the BacFuse group showed an increase in range of motion in proximal segment L4/5 in the extension and rotation directions by 27.3% and 17.39% (P < 0.05) respectively, with no significant change in flexion or lateral bending. In the screw-rob fixation group, the proximal segment L4/5 demonstrated 38.89%, 22.73% and 26.09% (P < 0.05) increases in range of motion in the flexion, extension and rotation directions, respectively, with no significant change in lateral bending. (4) In the Topping-off group, the range of motion of L2/3 was reduced by 37.04%, 73.08%, 56.67% and 38.46% in flexion, extension, lateral flexion and rotation, respectively, compared to the screw-rob fixation group (P < 0.05). Compared with the screw-rob fixation group, the Topping-off group showed a 20% reduction in the range of motion of the L4/5 in the flexion direction (P < 0.05), with no significant differences seen in extension, lateral bending and rotation. (5) It is concluded that the interspinous distraction fusion device BacFuse significantly reduces the range of motion of the implanted segment and provides some stability. It still retains more mobility and reduces the impact on the adjacent segment compared to screw-rob fixation, while the Topping-off tip, which can be used for intervertebral fusion fixation, significantly reduces the range of motion of the adjacent segment and reduces the risk of adjacent segment degeneration.

Key words: lumbar degenerative disease, interspinous distraction fusion device, BacFuse, screw-rob fixation, biomechanics, range of motion

CLC Number:

Chen Mengmeng, Bao Li, Chen Hao, Jia Pu, Feng Fei, Shi Guan, Tang Hai. Biomechanical characteristics of a novel interspinous distraction fusion device BacFuse for the repair of lumbar degenerative disease[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2024, 28(9): 1325-1329.

Figures/Tables 5

References

[1] 唐海,张体栋,陈浩,等. 棘突融合钢板治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床研究[J]. 中华骨科杂志,2016,36(6):344-352.
[2] FALOWSKI SM, MANGAL V, POPE J, et al. Multicenter Retrospective Review of Safety and Efficacy of a Novel Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interspinous Fusion Device. J Pain Res. 2021;14:1525-1531.
[3] WANG R, JI X, LIU L, et al. Changes of MRI in inter-spinal distraction fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: A retrospective analysis covering 3 years. J Clin Neurosci. 2020;81:455-461.
[4] WEI H, TANG H, ZHANG T, et al. Preliminary efficacy of inter-spinal distraction fusion which is a new technique for lumbar disc herniation. Int Orthop. 2019;43(4):899-907.
[5] 陈萌萌,唐海.棘突间装置在腰椎退行性变疾病的相关生物力学研究进展[J]. 国际外科学杂志,2021,48(8):572-576.
[6] LIU Z, ZHANG S, LI J, et al. Biomechanical comparison of different interspinous process devices in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022;23(1):585.
[7] 王宝东,侯继春,何人可,等. 国产新型腰椎棘突间撑开器体外生物力学测试及有限元分析[J]. 中国组织工程研究,2020,24(12):1897-1904.
[8] BONALDI G. Minimally invasive dynamic stabilization of the degenerated lumbar spine. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2010;20(2):229-241.
[9] MANFRE L, DE VIVO AE, AL QATAMI H, et al. Successful use of percutaneous interspinous spacers and adjunctive spinoplasty in a 9 year cohort of patients. J Neurointerv Surg. 2020;12(7):673-677.
[10] VERHOOF OJ, BRON JL, WAPSTRA FH, et al. High failure rate of the interspinous distraction device (X-Stop) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis caused by degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2008; 17(2):188-192.
[11] WANG K, ZHU Z, WANG B, et al. Bone resorption during the first year after implantation of a single-segment dynamic interspinous stabilization device and its risk factors. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:117.
[12] RAIKAR SV, PATIL AA, PANDEY DK, et al. Inter Spinal Fixation and Stabilization Device for Lumbar Radiculopathy and Back Pain. Cureus. 2021;13(11): e19956.
[13] POSTACCHINI F, POSTACCHINI R, MENCHETTI PP, et al. Lumbar Interspinous Process Fixation and Fusion with Stand-Alone Interlaminar Lumbar Instrumented Fusion Implant in Patients with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Undergoing Decompression for Spinal Stenosis. Asian Spine J. 2016;10(1): 27-37.
[14] CUELLAR JM, FIELD JS, BAE HW. Distraction Laminoplasty With Interlaminar Lumbar Instrumented Fusion (ILIF) for Lumbar Stenosis With or Without Grade 1 Spondylolisthesis: Technique and 2-Year Outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41 Suppl 8:S97-S105.
[15] SCLAFANI JA, LIANG K, OHNMEISS DD, et al. Clinical outcomes of a polyaxial interspinous fusion system. Int J Spine Surg. 2014;8:35.
[16] CHEN M, JIA P, FENG F, et al. A novel minimally invasive technique of inter-spinal distraction fusion surgery for single-level lumbar spinal stenosis in octogenarians: a retrospective cohort study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2022; 17(1):100.
[17] KAYE AD, EDINOFF AN, TEMPLE SN, et al. A Comprehensive Review of Novel Interventional Techniques for Chronic Pain: Spinal Stenosis and Degenerative Disc Disease-MILD Percutaneous Image Guided Lumbar Decompression, Vertiflex Interspinous Spacer, MinuteMan G3 Interspinous-Interlaminar Fusion. Adv Ther. 2021;38(9):4628-4645.
[18] CHEN M, TANG H, SHAN J, et al. A new interspinous process distraction device BacFuse in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with 5 years follow-up study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99(26):e20925.
[19] WILKE HJ, DRUMM J, HAUSSLER K, et al. Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(8):1049-1056.
[20] LINDSEY DP, SWANSON KE, FUCHS P, et al. The effects of an interspinous implant on the kinematics of the instrumented and adjacent levels in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(19):2192-2197.
[21] GUO Z, LIU G, WANG L, et al. Biomechanical effect of Coflex and X-STOP spacers on the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis. Am J Transl Res. 2022;14(7):5155-5163.
[22] BRUSSEE P, HAUTH J, DONK RD, et al. Self-rated evaluation of outcome of the implantation of interspinous process distraction (X-Stop) for neurogenic claudication. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(2):200-203.
[23] KARAHALIOS DG, KAIBARA T, PORTER RW, et al. Biomechanics of a lumbar interspinous anchor with anterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;12(4):372-380.
[24] TECHY F, MAGESWARAN P, COLBRUNN RW, et al. Properties of an interspinous fixation device (ISD) in lumbar fusion constructs: a biomechanical study. Spine J. 2013;13(5):572-579.
[25] GONZALEZ-BLOHM SA, DOULGERIS JJ, AGHAYEV K, et al. Biomechanical analysis of an interspinous fusion device as a stand-alone and as supplemental fixation to posterior expandable interbody cages in the lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(2):209-219.
[26] LEE CH, KIM YE, LEE HJ, et al. Biomechanical effects of hybrid stabilization on the risk of proximal adjacent-segment degeneration following lumbar spinal fusion using an interspinous device or a pedicle screw-based dynamic fixator. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;27(6):643-649.
[27] SHEN H, FOGEL GR, ZHU J, et al. Biomechanical analysis of lumbar fusion with proximal interspinous process device implantation. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 2021;37(8):e3498.
[28] KONG C, LU S, HAI Y, et al. Biomechanical effect of interspinous dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion on range of motion of the transition segment and the adjacent segment. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2015;30(4):355-359.
[29] 马亮,许永涛,佘远举.腰椎融合联合上一节段棘突间动态固定的有限元分析[J]. 中国组织工程研究,2018,22(23):3647-3653.
[30] DEER TR, SAYED D, MALINOWSKI MN, et al. A Review of Emerging Evidence for Utilization of a Percutaneous Interspinous Process Decompression Device to Treat Symptomatic Lumbar Adjacent-Segment Degeneration. Pain Med. 2019;20(Suppl 2):S9-S13.
[31] CHEN MM, JIA P, TANG H. Cortical bone trajectory fixation in cemented vertebrae in lumbar degenerative disease: A case report. World J Clin Cases. 2021;9(28):8609-8615.