Download PDF
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2012; 73(02): 065-072
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1297250
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Role of the Inter-/Supraspinous Ligament Complex in Stand-Alone Interspinous Process Devices: A Biomechanical and Anatomic Study

T. Kaulhausen
1   Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
J. Siewe
1   Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
P. Eysel
1   Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
J. Knifka
2   Center of Anatomy, Institute II for Anatomy, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
H. P. Notermans
2   Center of Anatomy, Institute II for Anatomy, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
J. Koebke
2   Center of Anatomy, Institute II for Anatomy, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
R. Sobottke
1   Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
30 March 2012 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with neurogenic intermittent claudication is one of the most common degenerative spinal diseases in the elderly. For patients over 65 years with LSS, open decompression is the most frequent spinal surgery. One problem associated with decompression surgery is the emergence of instability, which is found in varying grades of severity. For some patients with LSS, interspinous process devices (IPD) may be a viable alternative to open decompression. The purpose of this study is to examine the destruction and changes to the interspinous and supraspinous ligament complex after percutanous IPD implantation.

Methods Biomechanical and anatomic assessments were performed on the lumbar spine (L1–L4) of 11 fresh human cadavers. The biomechanical examination assayed the force necessary to disrupt the interspinous-supraspinous ligament complex without and after implantation of an IPD. For the anatomic examination, one lumbar spine was plastinated. Serial 4-mm thick sections were cut in sagittal and horizontal planes. The macroanatomic positioning of the implants was then analysed.

Results Biomechanics: The average age of the cadavers was 80.6±10.2 years. The minimum average disrupting forces measured 313.74±113.44 N without and 239.47±63.64 N after IPD implantation, a significant (p<0.018) decrease of an average 23.7%. Anatomy: After posterolateral percutaneous IPD implantation, the posterior third of the interspinous ligament, the supraspinous ligament, the thoracolumbar fascia and paraspinous muscles bordering the inter-/supraspinous ligament complex remained undamaged.

Conclusion The implantation of an interspinous “stand-alone” spacer significantly minimises the force necessary to disrupt the ISL/SSL complex. After posterolateral percutaneous IPD implantation, the thoracolumbar fascia and associated musculature, which act in synergy with the ISL/SSL complex to stabilise the vertebral column, remain intact.

Keywords

spinal stenosis - minimally invasive spine surgery - interspinous process device (IPD)
 

  • References

  • 1 Porter RW. Spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication. Spine 1996; 21: 2046-2052
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Vogt MT, Cawthon PM, Kang JD , et al. Prevalence of symptoms of cervical and lumbar stenosis among participants in the osteoporotic fractures in men study. Spine 2006; 31: 1445-1451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ciol MA, Deyo RA, Howell E , et al. An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications, and reoperations. J Am Geriatr Soc 1996; 44: 285-290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Katz JN. Lumbar spinal fusion. Surgical rates, costs, and complications. Spine 1995; 20: 78S-83S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Chang LC , et al. Seven- to 10-year outcome of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1996; 21: 92-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Heuer F, Schmidt H, Claes L , et al. Stepwise reduction of functional spinal structures increase vertebral translation and intradiscal pressure. J Biomech 2007; 40: 795-803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Schulte TL, Hurschler C, Haversath M , et al. The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants on the range of motion of lumbar motion segments after decompression. Eur Spine J 2008; 17: 1057-1065
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sobottke R, Schluter-Brust K, Kaulhausen T , et al. Interspinous implants (X Stop®, Wallis®, Diam®) for the treatment of LSS: is there a correlation between radiological parameters and clinical outcome?. Eur Spine J 2009; 1494-1503
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Scapinelli R, Stecco C, Pozzuoli A , et al. The lumbar interspinous ligaments in humans: Anatomical study and review of the literature. Cells Tissues Organs 2006; 183: 1-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kosaka H, Sairyo K, Biyani A , et al. Pathomechanism of loss of elasticity and hypertrophy of lumbar ligamentum flavum in elderly patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine 2007; 32: 2805-2811
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Johnson GM, Zhang M. Regional differences within the human supraspinous and interspinous ligaments: a sheet plastination study. Eur Spine J 2002; 11: 382-388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Aspden RM, Bornstein NH, Hukins DW. Collagen organisation in the interspinous ligament and its relationship to tissue function. J Anat 1987; 155: 141-151
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Behrsin JF, Briggs CA. Ligaments of the lumbar spine: a review. Surg Radiol Anat 1988; 10: 211-219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Heylings DJ. Supraspinous and interspinous ligaments of the human lumbar spine. J Anat 1978; 125: 127-131
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Putz R. The detailed functional anatomy of the ligaments of the vertebral column. Ann Anat 1992; 174: 40-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Putz RL, Muller-Gerbl M. The vertebral column  −  a phylogenetic failure? A theory explaining the function and vulnerability of the human spine. Clin Anat 1996; 9: 205-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Dickey JP, Bednar DA, Dumas GA. New insight into the mechanics of the lumbar interspinous ligament. Spine 1996; 21: 2720-2727
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gudavalli MR, Triano JJ. An analytical model of lumbar motion segment in flexion. Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics 1999; 22: 201-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Myklebust JB, Pintar F, Yoganandan N , et al. Tensile strength of spinal ligaments. Spine 1988; 13: 526-531
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Dumas GA, Beaudoin L, Drouin G. In situ mechanical behavior of posterior spinal ligaments in the lumbar region. An in vitro study. J Biomechanics 1987; 20: 301-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Gillespie KA, Dickey JP. Biomechanical role of lumbar spine ligaments in flexion and extension: Determination using a parallel linkage robot and a porcine model. Spine 2004; 29: 1208-1216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lee KK, Teo EC. Poroelastic analysis of lumbar spinal stability in combined compression and anterior shear. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004; 17: 429-438
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bogduk N. The innervation of the lumbar spine. Spine 1983; 8: 286-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Jiang H, Russell G, Raso VJ , et al. The nature and distribution of the innervation of human supraspinal and interspinal ligaments. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995; 20: 869-876
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Prestar FJ, Frick H, Putz R. Ligamentous connections of the spinal processes. Anat Anz 1985; 159: 259-268
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Rhalmi S, Yahia LH, Newman N, Isler M. Immunohistochemical study of nerves in lumbar spine ligaments. Spine 1993; 18: 264-267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Solomonow M, Zhou BH, Harris M , et al. The ligamento-muscular stabilizing system of the spine. Spine 1998; 23: 2552-2562
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Yahia H, Newman N. A light and electron microscopic study of spinal ligament innervation. Z Mikrosk Anat Forsch 1989; 103: 664-674
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Panjabi MM. The stabilizing system of the spine. Part II. Neutral zone and instability hypothesis. J Spinal Disorders 1992; 5: 390-396 ; discussion 397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Panjabi MM. The stabilizing system of the spine. Part I. Function, dysfunction, adaptation, and enhancement. J Spinal Disorders 1992; 5: 383-389 ; discussion 397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Kotani Y, Cunningham BW, Cappuccino A, Kaneda K, McAfee PC. The effects of spinal fixation and destabilization on the biomechanical and histologic properties of spinal ligaments. An in vivo study. Spine 1998; 23: 672-682 ; discussion 673–682
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Iida T, Abumi K, Kotani Y , et al. Effects of aging and spinal degeneration on mechanical properties of lumbar supraspinous and interspinous ligaments. Spine J 2002; 2: 95-100
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Scapinelli R. Localized ossifications in the supraspinous and interspinous ligaments of adult man. Rays 1988; 13: 29-33
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Fujiwara A, Tamai K, An HS , et al. The interspinous ligament of the lumbar spine. Magnetic resonance images and their clinical significance. Spine 2000; 25: 358-363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Rissanen PM. The surgical anatomy and pathology of the supraspinous and interspinous ligaments of the lumbar spine with special reference to ligament ruptures. Acta orthop Scan 1960; 46: 1-100
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Chazal J, Tanguy A, Bourges M , et al. Biomechanical properties of spinal ligaments and a histological study of the supraspinal ligament in traction. J Biomechanics 1985; 18: 167-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Panjabi MM, Goel VK, Takata K. Physiologic strains in the lumbar spinal ligaments. An in vitro biomechanical study 1981 Volvo Award in Biomechanics. Spine 1982; 7: 192-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar