Interlaminar spacer: a review of its mechanism, application, and efficacy.

BACKGROUND: The management of neurogenic intermittent claudication encompasses myriad modalities, with the use of Interlaminar spacer being among the newer ones. METHODS AND RESULTS: A review of work-to-date on Interlaminar spacer is presented, which was first introduced in November 2005. A multitude of both clinical and radiographic studies among both orthopedists and neurosurgeons embracing its ease of insertion, decreased operative duration and morbidity, and often same-day hospital discharge while obtaining therapeutic benefits seemingly comparable to more traditional decompressive techniques is discussed. It acts via modification of the normal relationships between both soft and hard tissues, and some initial studies have reported patient satisfaction exceeding 70%. CONCLUSIONS: This review will allow the clinician to better understand Interlaminar spacer's indications in the context of current literature and, moreover, help one determine when its insertion is most likely to produce symptom relief. Although never directly compared against traditional decompression, there is evidence based on standard outcome reporting instruments that it can offer therapeutic efficacy at least comparable to its proven operative predecessors. More recent work examining its long-term patient outcomes has begun to reveal its shortcomings as well as the urgency of further studying its efficacy. Clinicians should consider its insertion with cautious enthusiasm, especially considering some of its recently published poor patient outcomes and the newer interspinous devices on the horizon.

Comparison of contemporary occipitocervical instrumentation techniques with and without C1 lateral mass screws.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to test the kinematic properties of three occiput-C2 instrumentation constructs with and without supplemental rigid C1 fixation. The results are compared with intact specimens and with constructs incorporating contemporary cabling techniques. METHODS: Five unembalmed human cadaver specimens underwent range of motion (ROM) testing in the intact condition, followed by destabilization with odontoid osteotomy. Destabilized specimens then underwent ROM testing with each of seven occipitocervical instrumentation constructs, all incorporating occipital screws: C1 and C2 sublaminar cables with cable connectors, C2 pars screws +/- C1 lateral mass screws, C2 lamina screws +/- C1 lateral mass screws, and C1-C2 transarticular screws +/- C1 lateral mass screws. RESULTS: All seven constructs demonstrated significantly lower ROM in all loading modes than intact specimens (P < 0.05). With a single exception, the addition of C1 lateral mass screws to the screw-based constructs produced no significant change in ROM in any of the loading modes. Compared with intact specimens, constructs anchored by C1-C2 transarticular screws demonstrated the greatest decrease in ROM, and those anchored by sublaminar cables demonstrated the least decrease in ROM. CONCLUSION: Any of the tested screw-based constructs are likely to provide adequate support for the patient with an unstable craniocervical junction. Therefore, the choice of construct should be based on anatomic considerations. The routine incorporation of C1 lateral mass screws into occipitocervical instrumentation constructs does not seem necessary.

Biomechanical evaluation of a novel lumbosacral axial fixation device.

BACKGROUND: Interbody arthrodesis is employed in the lumbar spine to eliminate painful motion and achieve stability through bony fusion. Bone grafts, metal cages, composite spacers, and growth factors are available and can be placed through traditional open techniques or minimally invasively. Whether placed anteriorly, posteriorly, or laterally, insertion of these implants necessitates compromise of the anulus--an inherently destabilizing procedure. A new axial percutaneous approach to the lumbosacral spine has been described. Using this technique, vertical access to the lumbosacral spine is achieved percutaneously via the presacral space. An implant that can be placed across a motion segment without compromise to the anulus avoids surgical destabilization and may be advantageous for interbody arthrodesis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vitro biomechanical performance of the axial fixation rod, an anulus sparing, centrally placed interbody fusion implant for motion segment stabilization. METHOD OF APPROACH: Twenty-four bovine lumbar motion segments were mechanically tested using an unconstrainedflexibility protocol in sagittal and lateral bending, and torsion. Motion segments were also tested in axial compression. Each specimen was tested in an intact state, then drilled (simulating a transaxial approach to the lumbosacral spine), then with one of two axial fixation rods placed in the spine for stabilization. The range of motion, bending stiffness, and axial compressive stiffness were determined for each test condition. Results were compared to those previously reported for femoral ring allografts, bone dowels, BAK and BAK Proximity cages, Ray TFC, Brantigan ALIF and TLIF implants, the InFix Device, Danek TIBFD, single and double Harms cages, and Kaneda, Isola, and University plating systems. RESULTS: While axial drilling of specimens had little effect on stiffness and range of motion, specimens implanted with the axial fixation rod exhibited significant increases in stiffness and decreases in range of motion relative to intact state. When compared to existing anterior, posterior, and interbody instrumentation, lateral and sagittal bending stiffness of the axial fixation rod exceeded that of all other interbody devices, while stiffness in extension and axial compression were comparable to plate and rod constructs. Torsional stiffness was comparable to other interbody constructs and slightly lower than plate and rod constructs. CONCLUSIONS: For stabilization of the L5-S1 motion segment, axial placement of implants offers potential benefits relative to traditional exposures. The preliminary biomechanical data from this study indicate that the axial fixation rod compares favorably to other devices and may be suitable to reduce pathologic motion at L5-S1, thus promoting bony fusion.