Advancing the design of interspinous fixation devices for improved biomechanical performance: dual

Background: Interspinous devices were introduced in the field of spine surgery as an alternative to traditional pedicle screw fixation in selected patients for treatment of spinal stenosis and fixation. These devices designs have evolved from non-fixated extension blocks to sophisticated interspinous fixation devices (IFDs). There is an absence of literature comparing the biomechanical fixation strength of different IFD plate designs and the role of set screw locking systems. The aim of this study was to evaluate fixation strengths by bench testing static disassembly and pullout strength of two dissimilar IFD designs and locking mechanisms. We hypothesized that the InSpan (InSpan LLC, Burlington, MA, USA) dual-locking symmetrically IFD plate designed will have stronger fixation than the Aspen (ZimVie, Parsippany, NJ, USA) single-locking asymmetric IFD plate design. Methods: We conducted two biomechanical bench tests to evaluate the load to failure locking characteristics of symmetrical InSpan and asymmetrical Aspen IFD designs. Static pullout testing involved locking each IFD to the stainless steel and 40 pcf cellular polyurethane foam and measuring pullout load and displacement six times. Seven InSpan and two Aspen IFDs (including the "used" IFDs from the pullout testing) underwent static disassembly tests using a pair of disassembly fixtures positioned between the IFD plates to measure disassembly force and displacement. All tests were performed under ambient conditions using an INSTRON 8874 Bi-Axial Tabletop Servohydraulic Dynamic Testing System (INSTRON, Norwood, MA, USA), and data was collected at a 0.2 mm/s displacement control rate until the test was stopped when there was a drop in the continuously increasing force against resistance (gross failure). Results: The InSpan IFD experienced 94.81% higher resistance to pullout compared to the Aspen IFD in static pullout testing (P<0.05), owing to its notably larger footprint area of 69.8%. Gross failure for both IFD implant designs occurred at the foam block-block interface. In static disassembly testing, pristine InSpan required 60.7% higher force over pristine Aspen and 401.3% for "used" IFDs. Gross failure was characterized by the gradual distraction of the plates and material removal at the set screw contact points. Implant failure at the block-implant interface emphasized the pivotal role of teeth design and the contact surface area of the plates in ensuring stability. Conclusions: The dual-locking symmetrical InSpan IFD outperformed single-locking asymmetric Aspen IFD in both static disassembly and pullout bench tests. This highlights the benefits of InSpan's improved design and its potential for enhanced long-term stability in spinal fixation applications.