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
Back to article page

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X