{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,24]],"date-time":"2026-06-24T04:02:02Z","timestamp":1782273722510,"version":"3.54.5"},"reference-count":48,"publisher":"Walter de Gruyter GmbH","issue":"2","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2020,4,28]],"date-time":"2020-04-28T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1588032000000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2020,4,28]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:p>In the last decades, several interspinous process devices were designed as a minimally invasive treatment option for spinal stenosis. In order to minimise surgical trauma, interspinous process devices were recently discussed as an alternative posterior fixation in vertebral interbody fusions. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a newly designed interspinous device with polyester bands (PBs) on range of motion (RoM) and centre of rotation (CoR) of a treated motion segment in comparison with an established interspinous device with spikes (SC) as well as with pedicle screw instrumentation in lumbar fusion procedures. Flexibility tests with an applied pure moment load of 7.5 Nm were performed in six monosegmental thoracolumbar functional spinal units (FSUs) in the following states: (a) native, (b) native with PB device, (c) intervertebral cage with PB device, (d) cage with SC and (e) cage with internal fixator. The resulting RoM was normalised to the native RoM. The CoR was determined of X-ray images taken in maximal flexion and extension during testing. In flexion and extension, the PB device without and with the cage reduced the RoM of the native state to 58% [standard deviation (SD) 17.8] and 53% (SD 15.7), respectively. The SC device further reduced the RoM to 27% (SD 16.8), while the pedicle screw instrumentation had the most reducing effect to 17% (SD 17.2) (p\u2009&lt;\u20090.01). In lateral bending and axial rotation, the interspinous devices had the least effect on the RoM. Compared to the native state, for all instrumentations the CoR showed a small shift towards cranial. In the anterior-posterior direction, the SC device and the pedicle screw instrumentation shifted the CoR towards the posterior wall. The interspinous devices significantly reduced the RoM in flexion\/extension, while in axial rotation and lateral bending only the internal fixator had a significant effect on the RoM.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1515\/bmt-2018-0086","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2019,10,24]],"date-time":"2019-10-24T15:14:06Z","timestamp":1571930046000},"page":"183-189","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":3,"title":["Functional and radiographic evaluation of an interspinous device as an adjunct for lumbar interbody fusion procedures"],"prefix":"10.1515","volume":"65","author":[{"given":"Anna","family":"Spicher","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Medical University of Innsbruck, Department of Trauma Surgery, Anichstrasse 35, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Werner","family":"Schmoelz","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Medical University of Innsbruck, Department of Trauma Surgery, Anichstrasse 35, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Rene","family":"Schmid","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Medical University of Innsbruck, Department of Trauma Surgery, Anichstrasse 35, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Hannes","family":"Stofferin","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Medical University of Innsbruck, Division of Clinical and Functional Anatomy, Department of Anatomy, Histology and Embryology, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Niall J.A.","family":"Craig","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Queen Elisabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"374","reference":[{"key":"ref131","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"542","DOI":"10.3171\/2014.1.SPINE13426","article-title":"Load sharing in lumbar spinal segment as a function of location of center of rotation","volume":"20","year":"2014","journal-title":"J Neurosurg Spine"},{"key":"ref361","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"572","DOI":"10.1016\/j.wneu.2010.02.025","article-title":"Biomechanics of a lumbar interspinous anchor with transforaminal lumbar interbody fixation","volume":"73","year":"2010","journal-title":"World Neurosurg"},{"key":"ref201","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"617","DOI":"10.3171\/2013.3.SPINE12923","article-title":"Instantaneous center of rotation behavior of the lumbar spine with ligament failure","volume":"18","year":"2013","journal-title":"J Neurosurg Spine"},{"key":"ref341","first-page":"408","article-title":"Can the interspinous device, SPIRE\u2122, be an alternative fixation modality in posterior lumbar fusion instead of pedicle screw?","volume":"27","year":"2017","journal-title":"Turk Neurosurg"},{"key":"ref231","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"135","DOI":"10.1136\/bjsports-2014-f6415rep","article-title":"Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomised controlled trial","volume":"49","year":"2015","journal-title":"Br J Sports Med"},{"key":"ref211","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"242","DOI":"10.1016\/j.clinbiomech.2007.09.004","article-title":"Can a modified interspinous spacer prevent instability in axial rotation and lateral bending? A biomechanical in vitro study resulting in a new idea","volume":"23","year":"2008","journal-title":"Clin Biomech"},{"key":"ref421","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"E994","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0000000000000422","article-title":"Primary stiffness of a modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage with integrated screw fixation: cadaveric biomechanical study","volume":"39","year":"2014","journal-title":"Spine"},{"key":"ref321","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"209","DOI":"10.3171\/2013.10.SPINE13612","article-title":"Biomechanical analysis of an interspinous fusion device as a stand-alone and as supplemental fixation to posterior expandable interbody cages in the lumbar spine","volume":"20","year":"2014","journal-title":"J Neurosurg Spine"},{"key":"ref41","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"E8","DOI":"10.3171\/2011.7.FOCUS11168","article-title":"Clinically relevant complications related to pedicle screw placement in thoracolumbar surgery and their management: a literature review of 35,630 pedicle screws","volume":"31","year":"2011","journal-title":"Neurosurg Focus"},{"key":"ref01","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1812","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2014.06.015","article-title":"Bilateral pedicle screw fixation provides superior biomechanical stability in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element study","volume":"15","year":"2015","journal-title":"Spine J"},{"key":"ref451","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1049","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-008-0657-2","article-title":"Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure","volume":"17","year":"2008","journal-title":"Eur Spine J"},{"key":"ref11","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"643","DOI":"10.3171\/2017.3.SPINE161169","article-title":"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","volume":"27","year":"2017","journal-title":"J Neurosurg Spine"},{"key":"ref91","first-page":"975052","article-title":"Controversies about interspinous process devices in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases: past, present, and future","volume":"2014","year":"2014","journal-title":"Biomed Res Int"},{"key":"ref171","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"148","DOI":"10.1007\/s005860050045","article-title":"Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants","volume":"7","year":"1998","journal-title":"Eur Spine J"},{"key":"ref221","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"402","DOI":"10.12998\/wjcc.v2.i9.402","article-title":"Interspinous posterior devices: what is the real surgical indication?","volume":"2","year":"2014","journal-title":"World J Clin Cases"},{"key":"ref141","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"939","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-011-2121-y","article-title":"Biomechanical evaluation of a posterior non-fusion instrumentation of the lumbar spine","volume":"21","year":"2012","journal-title":"Eur Spine J"},{"key":"ref371","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"205","DOI":"10.1016\/j.clinbiomech.2014.10.003","article-title":"Biomechanical comparison of an interspinous fusion device and bilateral pedicle screw system as additional fixation for lateral lumbar interbody fusion","volume":"30","year":"2015","journal-title":"Clin Biomech"},{"key":"ref331","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"572","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2013.01.042","article-title":"Properties of an interspinous fixation device (ISD) in lumbar fusion constructs: a biomechanical study","volume":"13","year":"2013","journal-title":"Spine J"},{"key":"ref181","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"E162","DOI":"10.1097\/BSD.0000000000000125","article-title":"Unilateral extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ELIF): surgical technique and clinical outcome in 107 patients","volume":"29","year":"2016","journal-title":"Clin Spine Surg"},{"key":"ref81","first-page":"408","article-title":"Can the interspinous device, SPIRE\u2122, be an alternative fixation modality in posterior lumbar fusion instead of pedicle screw?","volume":"27","year":"2017","journal-title":"Turk Neurosurg"},{"key":"ref111","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"205","DOI":"10.1016\/j.clinbiomech.2014.10.003","article-title":"Biomechanical comparison of an interspinous fusion device and bilateral pedicle screw system as additional fixation for lateral lumbar interbody fusion","volume":"30","year":"2015","journal-title":"Clin Biomech"},{"key":"ref471","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"242","DOI":"10.1016\/j.clinbiomech.2007.09.004","article-title":"Can a modified interspinous spacer prevent instability in axial rotation and lateral bending? A biomechanical in vitro study resulting in a new idea","volume":"23","year":"2008","journal-title":"Clin Biomech"},{"key":"ref31","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"594","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-002-0469-8","article-title":"Complications of pedicle screws in lumbar and lumbosacral fusions in 105 consecutive primary operations","volume":"11","year":"2002","journal-title":"Eur Spine J"},{"key":"ref101","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"572","DOI":"10.1016\/j.wneu.2010.02.025","article-title":"Biomechanics of a lumbar interspinous anchor with transforaminal lumbar interbody fixation","volume":"73","year":"2010","journal-title":"World Neurosurg"},{"key":"ref251","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1148","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2017.03.021","article-title":"Is a gradual reduction of stiffness on top of posterior instrumentation possible with a suitable proximal implant? A biomechanical study","volume":"17","year":"2017","journal-title":"Spine J"},{"key":"ref61","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"209","DOI":"10.3171\/2013.10.SPINE13612","article-title":"Biomechanical analysis of an interspinous fusion device as a stand-alone and as supplemental fixation to posterior expandable interbody cages in the lumbar spine","volume":"20","year":"2014","journal-title":"J Neurosurg Spine"},{"key":"ref191","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1049","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-008-0657-2","article-title":"Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure","volume":"17","year":"2008","journal-title":"Eur Spine J"},{"key":"ref301","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"E8","DOI":"10.3171\/2011.7.FOCUS11168","article-title":"Clinically relevant complications related to pedicle screw placement in thoracolumbar surgery and their management: a literature review of 35,630 pedicle screws","volume":"31","year":"2011","journal-title":"Neurosurg Focus"},{"key":"ref391","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"542","DOI":"10.3171\/2014.1.SPINE13426","article-title":"Load sharing in lumbar spinal segment as a function of location of center of rotation","volume":"20","year":"2014","journal-title":"J Neurosurg Spine"},{"key":"ref411","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"30","DOI":"10.1016\/j.clinbiomech.2017.07.007","article-title":"Effect of cage design, supplemental posterior instrumentation and approach on primary stability of a lumbar interbody fusion \u2013 a biomechanical in vitro study","volume":"48","year":"2017","journal-title":"Clin Biomech"},{"key":"ref271","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"643","DOI":"10.3171\/2017.3.SPINE161169","article-title":"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","volume":"27","year":"2017","journal-title":"J Neurosurg Spine"},{"key":"ref21","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1424","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-200006010-00016","article-title":"Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management? A prospective 10-year study","volume":"25","year":"2000","journal-title":"Spine"},{"key":"ref71","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"572","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2013.01.042","article-title":"Properties of an interspinous fixation device (ISD) in lumbar fusion constructs: a biomechanical study","volume":"13","year":"2013","journal-title":"Spine J"},{"key":"ref121","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"102","DOI":"10.14245\/kjs.2012.9.2.102","article-title":"Long-term follow-up (minimum 5 years) study of single-level posterior dynamic stabilization in lumbar degenerative disease; \u2018Interspinous U\u2019 & \u2018DIAM\u2019","volume":"9","year":"2012","journal-title":"Korean J Spine"},{"key":"ref431","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"148","DOI":"10.1007\/s005860050045","article-title":"Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants","volume":"7","year":"1998","journal-title":"Eur Spine J"},{"key":"ref461","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"617","DOI":"10.3171\/2013.3.SPINE12923","article-title":"Instantaneous center of rotation behavior of the lumbar spine with ligament failure","volume":"18","year":"2013","journal-title":"J Neurosurg Spine"},{"key":"ref511","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1148","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2017.03.021","article-title":"Is a gradual reduction of stiffness on top of posterior instrumentation possible with a suitable proximal implant? A biomechanical study","volume":"17","year":"2017","journal-title":"Spine J"},{"key":"ref151","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"30","DOI":"10.1016\/j.clinbiomech.2017.07.007","article-title":"Effect of cage design, supplemental posterior instrumentation and approach on primary stability of a lumbar interbody fusion \u2013 a biomechanical in vitro study","volume":"48","year":"2017","journal-title":"Clin Biomech"},{"key":"ref481","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"402","DOI":"10.12998\/wjcc.v2.i9.402","article-title":"Interspinous posterior devices: what is the real surgical indication?","volume":"2","year":"2014","journal-title":"World J Clin Cases"},{"key":"ref441","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"E162","DOI":"10.1097\/BSD.0000000000000125","article-title":"Unilateral extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ELIF): surgical technique and clinical outcome in 107 patients","volume":"29","year":"2016","journal-title":"Clin Spine Surg"},{"key":"ref491","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"135","DOI":"10.1136\/bjsports-2014-f6415rep","article-title":"Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomised controlled trial","volume":"49","year":"2015","journal-title":"Br J Sports Med"},{"key":"ref281","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1424","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-200006010-00016","article-title":"Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management? A prospective 10-year study","volume":"25","year":"2000","journal-title":"Spine"},{"key":"ref161","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"E994","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0000000000000422","article-title":"Primary stiffness of a modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage with integrated screw fixation: cadaveric biomechanical study","volume":"39","year":"2014","journal-title":"Spine"},{"key":"ref261","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1812","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2014.06.015","article-title":"Bilateral pedicle screw fixation provides superior biomechanical stability in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element study","volume":"15","year":"2015","journal-title":"Spine J"},{"key":"ref291","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"594","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-002-0469-8","article-title":"Complications of pedicle screws in lumbar and lumbosacral fusions in 105 consecutive primary operations","volume":"11","year":"2002","journal-title":"Eur Spine J"},{"key":"ref351","first-page":"975052","article-title":"Controversies about interspinous process devices in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases: past, present, and future","volume":"2014","year":"2014","journal-title":"Biomed Res Int"},{"key":"ref381","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"102","DOI":"10.14245\/kjs.2012.9.2.102","article-title":"Long-term follow-up (minimum 5 years) study of single-level posterior dynamic stabilization in lumbar degenerative disease; \u2018Interspinous U\u2019 & \u2018DIAM\u2019","volume":"9","year":"2012","journal-title":"Korean J Spine"},{"key":"ref401","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"939","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-011-2121-y","article-title":"Biomechanical evaluation of a posterior non-fusion instrumentation of the lumbar spine","volume":"21","year":"2012","journal-title":"Eur Spine J"}],"container-title":["Biomedical Engineering \/ Biomedizinische Technik"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.degruyter.com\/view\/journals\/bmte\/65\/2\/article-p183.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.degruyter.com\/downloadpdf\/journals\/bmte\/65\/2\/article-p183.xml","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2021,2,27]],"date-time":"2021-02-27T20:09:52Z","timestamp":1614456592000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.degruyter.com\/document\/doi\/10.1515\/bmt-2018-0086\/html"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2020,4,28]]},"references-count":48,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2"},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1515\/bmt-2018-0086","relation":{},"ISSN":["1862-278X","0013-5585"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1862-278X","type":"electronic"},{"value":"0013-5585","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2020,4,28]]}}}