Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 26, 2025
Uniportal Full Endoscopic Posterolateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Published on: June 6, 2025
Biomechanical analysis of a newly developed interspinous process device conjunction with interbody cage based on a
In-Suk Bae1, Koang-Hum Bak2, Hyoung-Joon Chun2
1Department of Neurosurgery, Eulji University Eulji Hospital, Nowon-gu, Republic of Korea.
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.
