Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 9, 2025
Minimally Invasive Treatment for Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture Using Sagittal Alignment Screws and A Trauma Reduction Device
Published on: November 8, 2024
Biomechanical Analysis of an Interspinous Process Fixation Device with In Situ Shortening Capabilities: Does Spinous
Christopher Wagener1, Anup Gandhi2, Chris Ferry3
1Coordinated Health Systems, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA.
Objective:
The objective of this study was to characterize the biomechanical implications of spinous process compression, via in situ shortening of a next-generation interspinous process fixation (ISPF) device, in the context of segmental fusion.
Methods:
Seven lumbar cadaveric spines (L1-L4) were tested. Specimens were first tested in an intact state, followed by iterative instrumentation at L2-3 and subsequent testing. The order followed was 1) stand-alone ISPF (neutral height); 2) stand-alone ISPF (shortened in situ from neutral height; shortened); 3) lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) + ISPF (neutral); 4) LLIF + ISPF (shortened); 5) LLIF + unilateral pedicle screw fixation; 6) LLIF + bilateral pedicle screw fixation. A 7.5-Nm moment was applied in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation via a kinematic test frame. Segmental range of motion (ROM) and lordosis were measured for all constructs. Comparative analysis was performed.
Results:
Statistically significant flexion/extension ROM reductions: all constructs versus intact condition (P < 0.01); LLIF + ISPF (neutral and shortened) versus stand-alone ISPF (neutral and shortened) (P < 0.01); LLIF + USPF versus ISPF (neutral) (P = 0.049); bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) versus stand-alone ISPF (neutral and shortened) (P < 0.01); LLIF + BPSF versus LLIF + unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) (P < 0.01). Significant lateral bending ROM reductions: LLIF + ISPF (neutral and shortened) versus intact condition and stand-alone ISPF (neutral) (P < 0.01); LLIF + UPSF versus intact condition and stand-alone ISPF (neutral and shortened) (P < 0.01); LLIF + BPSF versus intact condition and all constructs (P < 0.01). Significant axial rotation ROM reductions: LLIF + ISPF (shortened) and LLIF + UPSF versus intact condition and stand-alone ISPF (neutral) (P ≤ 0.01); LLIF + BPSF versus intact condition and all constructs (P ≤ 0.04).
Conclusions:
In situ shortening of an adjustable ISPF device may support increased segmental stabilization compared with static ISPF.
