Biomechanics of an Expandable Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Deployed Through Transforaminal Approach

Finite element analysis of implanted lumbar spine: Effects of open laminectomy plus PLF and open laminectomy plus TLIF surgical approaches on L3-L4 FSU

Several finite element (FE) studies reported performances of various lumbar fusion surgical approaches. However, comparative studies on the performance of Open Laminectomy plus Posterolateral Fusion (OL-PLF) and Open Laminectomy plus Transforaminal Interbody Fusion (OL-TLIF) surgical approaches are rare. In the current FE study, the variation in ranges of motions (ROM), stress-strain distributions in an implanted functional spinal unit (FSU) and caudal adjacent soft structures between OL-PLF and OL-TLIF virtual models were investigated. The implanted lumbar spine FE models were developed from subject-specific computed tomography images of an intact spine and solved for physiological loadings such as compression, flexion, extension and lateral bending. Reductions in the ROMs of L1-L5 (49 % to 59 %) and L3-L4 implanted FSUs (91 % to 96 %) were observed for both models. Under all the loading cases, the maximum von Mises strain observed in the implanted segment of both models exceeds the mean compressive yield strain for the vertebra. The maximum von Mises stress and strain observed on the caudal adjacent soft structures of both the implanted models are at least 22 % higher than the natural spine model. The findings indicate the risk of failure in the implanted FSUs and higher chances of adjacent segment degeneration for both models.

Clinical outcome after dorso-ventral stabilization of the thoracolumbar and lumbar spine with vertebral body replacement and dorsal stabilization

PURPOSE

Surgical stabilization of the spine by vertebral body replacement (VBR) is used for spinal disorders such as traumatic fractures to provide an anatomical re-adjustment of the spine to prevent late detrimental effects and pain [1-4]. This study addresses the clinical outcome after a ventral intervention with VBR and bisegmental fusion.

METHODS

The study includes 76 patients (mean age: 59.34 ± 15.97; 34 females and 42 males) with fractures in the lower thoracic and lumbar spine. They were selected from patients of our hospital who received an anterolateral VBR surgery on the corresponding lower spine region over a nine-year period. Only patients were examined with X-rays and complete follow-up records. Exclusion criteria were changes due to degeneration and pathological fractures. Patients were divided into two groups, the thoracotomy group (Th10-L1) and the lumbotomy group (L2-5), respectively. Minimum one year after surgery, patients were asked about their well-being using a precasted questionnaire.

RESULTS

No significant differences with respect to the subjective impression of the patients concerning their back pain, spinal functional impairment, their general functional status and their quality of life impairment. Unfortunately, however, only a rather modest but significant increase of the post-surgical life quality was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent VBR in the lower thoracic or lumbar spine show modest long-term well-being. The results suggest that injuries to the lower thoracic or lumbar spine requiring vertebral body replacement should be classified as severe injuries since they adversely affect the patients' long-term well-being.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Study of clinical outcome of patients after vertebral body replacement of the ventral thoracal and lumbal spine, DRKS00031452. Registered 10th March 2023 - Prospectively registered. Trial registration number DRKS00031452.

Biomechanical evaluation of Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical analysis

In order to analyze and evaluate the stability of lumbar spine and the risk of cage subsidence after different minimally invasive fusion operations, two finite element models Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PE-PLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody Fusion (MIS-TLIF) were established. The results showed that compared with MIS-TLIF, PE-PLIF had better segmental stability, lower pedicle screw rod system stress, and lower risk of cage subsidence. The results suggest that the cage with appropriate height should be selected to ensure the segmental stability and avoid the risk of the subsidence caused by the cage with large height.

Biomechanical and clinical studies on lumbar spine fusion surgery: a review

Low back pain is associated with degenerative disc diseases of the spine. Surgical treatment includes fusion and non-fusion types. The gold standard is fusion surgery, wherein the affected vertebral segment is fused. The common complication of fusion surgery is adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). The ASD often leads to revision surgery, calling for a further fusion of adjacent segments. The existing designs of nonfusion type implants are associated with clinical problems such as subsidence, difficulty in implantation, and the requirement of revision surgeries. Various surgical approaches have been adopted by the surgeons to insert the spinal implants into the affected segment. Over the years, extensive biomechanical investigations have been reported on various surgical approaches and prostheses to predict the outcomes of lumbar spine implantations. Computer models have been proven to be very effective in identifying the best prosthesis and surgical procedure. The objective of the study was to review the literature on biomechanical studies for the treatment of lumbar spinal degenerative diseases. A critical review of the clinical and biomechanical studies on fusion spine surgeries was undertaken. The important modeling parameters, challenges, and limitations of the current studies were identified, showing the future research directions.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients Undergoing Revision Fusion: Clinical Outcome Comparison

OBJECTIVE

We aim to compare perioperative/postoperative clinical outcomes between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in patients presenting for revision surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective database was reviewed for procedures between November 2005 and December 2021. Revision MIS-TLIF/ALIFs were included, whereas primary fusions or diagnosis of infection/malignancy/trauma were excluded. Patients were grouped into MIS-TLIF/ALIF cohorts. Preoperatively/postoperatively collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included visual analog scale back/leg score, Oswestry Disability Index, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), and Short-Form 12-Item Survey Mental/Physical Composite Scores.

RESULTS

A total of 164 patients were eligible, with 84 patients in the MIS-TLIF cohort. The presence of degenerative spondylolisthesis and central stenosis, narcotic consumption on postoperative day 0/1, and postoperative urinary retention rates was greater in the MIS-TLIF cohort (P ≤ 0.036, all). Preoperative PROMs between cohorts did not significantly differ. Significantly favorable postoperative PROM scores were shown in the MIS-TLIF cohort with PROMIS-PF at 12 weeks/6 months (P ≤ 0.033, all). Most patients in both cohorts achieved overall minimum clinically important difference for visual analog scale back/leg score, Oswestry Disability Index, Short-Form 12-Item Survey Physical Composite Score, and PROMIS-PF. No differences were noted between cohorts within rates of MCID achievement.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing revision fusion via MIS-TLIF or ALIF reported similar 1-year postoperative mean outcomes and rates of meaningful clinical achievement for physical function, mental health, disability, and back/leg pain. However, patients undergoing revision MIS-TLIF reported improved physical function at 12 weeks and 6 months. Perioperatively, patients undergoing revision MIS-TLIF were noted to consume significantly greater quantities of narcotics.

Do the positioning variables of the cage contribute to adjacent facet joint degeneration? Radiological and clinical analysis following intervertebral fusion

Background

Compared to other risk factors, adjacent facet joint degeneration (AFD) is the main contributor to adjacent segment disease (ASD). The interbody cage may be a potential indirect risk of AFD. This study investigated the correlations among the lumbar sagittal balance parameters, the inter-body cage's intraoperative positioning variables, and adjacent facet joint degeneration following the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) technique.

Methods

Patients who accepted single-level TLIF for symptomatic lumbar degenerative disease and were followed up for at least six months were enrolled in this study. According to the inclusive and exclusive criteria, 93 patients were included (44 males and 49 females). X-ray and computed tomography (CT) images were obtained before and six months after surgery. The vertebral contour and the center of the marker mass in the cage were calculated using a geometric algorithm. Orthopedic surgeons measured the disc height, lordosis angle, and facet joint degeneration. Patient-reported outcomes, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the visual analog scale (VAS), were used to assess the clinical outcomes. The Student’s t-test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and Chi-square test were used for the statistical analyses.

Results

The average age was 53.7 years old (range, 27–84 years). The average functional disability outcome assessed by the ODI was 61.2, and the average back and leg pain assessed by the VAS was 6.2 and 6.9, respectively. The patients were categorized into a normal group and an abnormal (AFD) group according to whether the facet joint degeneration was aggravated. The abnormal group had a higher back pain VAS score (P=0.031) and lower sagittal vertical position (P=0.027). The other parameters were similar at baseline (P>0.05). The cage’s sagittal vertical position decreased significantly with AFD aggravation (OR, 0.737; 95% CI, 0.561–0.969).

Conclusions

In patients with AFD aggravation, the preoperative VAS and postoperative ODI scores were significantly higher. The cage position parameters were related to AFD. A lower cage center was associated with a greater incidence of AFD.

Device solutions for a challenging spine surgery: minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF)

INTRODUCTION

Lumbar interbody fusion remains a mainstay in the treatment of degenerative spinal pathology. Interbody devices are often used in an attempt to improve fusion rates and outcomes. Minimally invasive techniques lend unique advantages, but are challenging and often plagued with complications. Specifically, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) has a steep learning curve and there is a lack of concise information on solutions to optimize outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

This review details an appropriate surgical technique of MIS TLIF and includes an overview of the components that go into a successful procedure. A thorough literature search of the PubMed database was completed to provide a comprehensive analysis of the interbody devices, posterolateral fixation, and osteobiologics.

EXPERT OPINION

MIS TLIFs have demonstrated successful clinical and radiographic outcomes and have become a mainstay for treating various degenerative lumbar pathologies. As minimally invasive techniques continue to evolve, devices and biologics will continue to expand the indications for MIS TLIFs and will optimize long-term outcomes.

Spinal Biologics in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Surgery

As the use of minimally invasive spine (MIS) fusion approaches continues to grow, increased scrutiny is being placed on its outcomes and efficacies against traditional open fusion surgeries. While there are many factors that contribute to the success of achieving spinal arthrodesis, selecting the optimal fusion biologic remains a top priority. With an ever-expanding market of bone graft substitutes, it is important to evaluate each of their use as it pertains to MIS techniques. This review will summarize the important characteristics and properties of various spinal biologics used in minimally invasive lumbar surgeries and compare their fusion rates via a systematic review of published literature.