Skip to main content

Table 2 Intersegmental ROM and disc stress peak of the FE models

From: Interlaminar stabilization offers greater biomechanical advantage compared to interspinous stabilization after lumbar decompression: a finite element analysis

  Intersegmental ROM (°) Disc stress peak (MPa)
  L2/3 L3/4 (surgical segment) L4/5 L2/3 L3/4 (surgical segment) L4/5
Extension       
 Intact 2.68 2.88 3.75 0.73 0.78 0.72
 DA 1.91 4.71 2.99 0.69 1.44 0.74
 DF 3.86 0.41 5.35 0.89 0.06 0.82
 ILS 3.49 1.27 4.85 0.84 0.36 0.80
 ISS 3.42 1.51 4.78 0.83 0.55 0.80
Flexion       
 Intact 3.92 4.42 5.31 0.76 0.70 0.76
 DA 3.27 5.68 4.69 0.66 0.76 0.65
 DF 5.24 1.12 7.20 0.88 0.57 0.88
 ILS 3.31 5.64 4.75 0.67 0.75 0.66
 ISS 3.27 5.65 4.69 0.66 0.75 0.65
Bending       
 Intact 3.17 3.21 3.78 0.82 1.05 0.97
 DA 3.04 3.30 3.81 0.81 1.18 0.96
 DF 4.12 0.99 5.05 0.98 0.50 1.20
 ILS 3.12 3.12 3.92 0.83 1.08 0.98
 ISS 3.12 3.12 3.92 0.83 1.08 0.98
Rotation       
 Intact 1.94 2.10 2.15 0.36 0.45 0.43
 DA 1.98 2.14 2.07 0.37 0.45 0.41
 DF 2.50 0.95 2.74 0.37 0.36 0.47
 ILS 2.06 1.99 2.14 0.37 0.48 0.42
 ISS 2.07 1.98 2.15 0.37 0.49 0.42
  1. ROM range of motion, DA decompression alone, DF decompression with fusion, ILS decompression with interlaminar stabilization, ISS decompression with interspinous stabilization