1
|
Burkhard MD, Calek AK, Fasser MR, Cornaz F, Widmer J, Spirig JM, Wanivenhaus F, Farshad M. Biomechanics after spinal decompression and posterior instrumentation. EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL : OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE EUROPEAN SPINE SOCIETY, THE EUROPEAN SPINAL DEFORMITY SOCIETY, AND THE EUROPEAN SECTION OF THE CERVICAL SPINE RESEARCH SOCIETY 2023; 32:1876-1886. [PMID: 37093262 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-023-07694-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/19/2022] [Revised: 03/24/2023] [Accepted: 03/28/2023] [Indexed: 04/25/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The aim of this study was to elucidate segmental range of motion (ROM) before and after common decompression and fusion procedures on the lumbar spine. METHODS ROM of fourteen fresh-frozen human cadaver lumbar segments (L1/2: 4, L3/4: 5, L5/S1: 5) was evaluated in six loading directions: flexion/extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), lateral shear (LS), anterior shear (AS), axial rotation (AR), and axial compression/distraction (AC). ROM was tested with and without posterior instrumentation under the following conditions: 1) native 2) after unilateral laminotomy, 3) after midline decompression, and 4) after nucleotomy. RESULTS Median native ROM was FE 6.8°, LB 5.6°, and AR 1.7°, AS 1.8 mm, LS 1.4 mm, AC 0.3 mm. Unilateral laminotomy significantly increased ROM by 6% (FE), 3% (LB), 12% (AR), 11% (AS), and 8% (LS). Midline decompression significantly increased these numbers to 15%, 5%, 21%, 20%, and 19%, respectively. Nucleotomy further increased ROM in all directions, most substantially in AC of 153%. Pedicle screw fixation led to ROM decreases of 82% in FE, 72% in LB, 42% in AR, 31% in AS, and 17% in LS. In instrumented segments, decompression only irrelevantly affected ROM. CONCLUSIONS The amount of posterior decompression significantly impacts ROM of the lumbar spine. The here performed biomechanical study allows creation of a simplified rule of thumb: Increases in segmental ROM of approximately 10%, 20%, and 50% can be expected after unilateral laminotomy, midline decompression, and nucleotomy, respectively. Instrumentation decreases ROM by approximately 80% in bending moments and accompanied decompression procedures only minorly destabilize the instrumentation construct.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco D Burkhard
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Spine Center Zürich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
| | - Anna-Katharina Calek
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Spine Center Zürich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Marie-Rosa Fasser
- Institute for Biomechanics, Balgrist Campus, ETH Zurich, Lengghalde 5, CH-8008, Zurich, Switzerland
- Spine Biomechanics, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Frédéric Cornaz
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Spine Center Zürich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Jonas Widmer
- Institute for Biomechanics, Balgrist Campus, ETH Zurich, Lengghalde 5, CH-8008, Zurich, Switzerland
- Spine Biomechanics, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - José Miguel Spirig
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Spine Center Zürich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Florian Wanivenhaus
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Spine Center Zürich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Mazda Farshad
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Spine Center Zürich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Burkhard MD, Spirig JM, Wanivenhaus F, Cornaz F, Fasser MR, Widmer J, Farshad M. Residual motion of different posterior instrumentation and interbody fusion constructs. EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL : OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE EUROPEAN SPINE SOCIETY, THE EUROPEAN SPINAL DEFORMITY SOCIETY, AND THE EUROPEAN SECTION OF THE CERVICAL SPINE RESEARCH SOCIETY 2023; 32:1411-1420. [PMID: 36820922 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-023-07597-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2022] [Revised: 02/06/2023] [Accepted: 02/08/2023] [Indexed: 02/24/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To elucidate residual motion of cortical screw (CS) and pedicle screw (PS) constructs with unilateral posterior lumbar interbody fusion (ul-PLIF), bilateral PLIF (bl-PLIF), facet-sparing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (fs-TLIF), and facet-resecting TLIF (fr-TLIF). METHODS A total of 35 human cadaver lumbar segments were instrumented with PS (n = 18) and CS (n = 17). Range of motion (ROM) and relative ROM changes were recorded in flexion/extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), axial rotation (AR), lateral shear (LS), anterior shear (AS), and axial compression (AC) in five instrumentational states: without interbody fusion (wo-IF), ul-PLIF, bl-PLIF, fs-TLIF, and fr-TLIF. RESULTS Whereas FE, LB, AR, and AC noticeably differed between the instrumentational states, AS and LS were less prominently affected. Compared to wo-IF, ul-PLIF caused a significant increase in ROM with PS (FE + 42%, LB + 24%, AR + 34%, and AC + 77%), however, such changes were non-significant with CS. ROM was similar between wo-IF and all other interbody fusion techniques. Insertion of a second PLIF (bl-PLIF) significantly decreased ROM with CS (FE -17%, LB -26%, AR -20%, AC -51%) and PS (FE - 23%, LB - 14%, AR - 20%, AC - 45%,). Facet removal in TLIF significantly increased ROM with CS (FE + 6%, LB + 9%, AR + 17%, AC of + 23%) and PS (FE + 7%, AR + 12%, AC + 13%). CONCLUSION bl-PLIF and TLIF show similarly low residual motion in both PS and CS constructs, but ul-PLIF results in increased motion. The fs-TLIF technique is able to further decrease motion compared to fr-TLIF in both the CS and PS constructs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco D Burkhard
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
| | - José M Spirig
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Florian Wanivenhaus
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Frédéric Cornaz
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Marie-Rosa Fasser
- Institute for Biomechanics, Balgrist Campus, ETH Zurich, Lengghalde 5, CH-8008, Zurich, Switzerland.,Spine Biomechanics, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Jonas Widmer
- Institute for Biomechanics, Balgrist Campus, ETH Zurich, Lengghalde 5, CH-8008, Zurich, Switzerland.,Spine Biomechanics, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Mazda Farshad
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Liu ZX, Gao ZW, Chen C, Liu ZY, Cai XY, Ren YN, Sun X, Ma XL, Du CF, Yang Q. Effects of osteoporosis on the biomechanics of various supplemental fixations co-applied with oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF): a finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2022; 23:794. [PMID: 35986271 PMCID: PMC9392247 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05645-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2021] [Accepted: 07/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) is an important surgical modality for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease. Various supplemental fixations can be co-applied with OLIF, increasing OLIF stability and reducing complications. However, it is unclear whether osteoporosis affects the success of supplemental fixations; therefore, this study analyzed the effects of osteoporosis on various supplemental fixations co-applied with OLIF. Methods We developed and validated an L3-S1 finite element (FE) model; we assigned different material properties to each component and established models of the osteoporotic and normal bone lumbar spine. We explored the outcomes of OLIF combined with each of five supplemental fixations: standalone OLIF; OLIF with lateral plate fixation (OLIF + LPF); OLIF with translaminar facet joint fixation and unilateral pedicle screw fixation (OLIF + TFJF + UPSF); OLIF with unilateral pedicle screw fixation (OLIF + UPSF); and OLIF with bilateral pedicle screw fixation (OLIF + BPSF). Under the various working conditions, we calculated the ranges of motion (ROMs) of the normal bone and osteoporosis models, the maximum Mises stresses of the fixation instruments (MMSFIs), and the average Mises stresses on cancellous bone (AMSCBs). Results Compared with the normal bone OLIF model, no demonstrable change in any segmental ROM was apparent. The MMSFIs increased in all five osteoporotic OLIF models. In the OLIF + TFJF + UPSF model, the MMSFIs increased sharply in forward flexion and extension. The stress changes of the OLIF + UPSF, OLIF + BPSF, and OLIF + TFJF + UPSF models were similar; all stresses trended upward. The AMSCBs decreased in all five osteoporotic OLIF models during flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. The average stress change of cancellous bone was most obvious under extension. The AMSCBs of the five OLIF models decreased by 14%, 23.44%, 21.97%, 40.56%, and 22.44% respectively. Conclusions For some supplemental fixations, the AMSCBs were all reduced and the MMSFIs were all increased in the osteoporotic model, compared with the OLIF model of normal bone. Therefore, the biomechanical performance of an osteoporotic model may be inferior to the biomechanical performance of a normal model for the same fixation method; in some instances, it may increase the risks of fracture and internal fixation failure.
Collapse
|
4
|
Zakko P, Whaley JD, Preston G, Park DK. Expandable vs Static Interbody Devices for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Int J Spine Surg 2022; 16:S53-S60. [PMID: 35387889 PMCID: PMC9983557 DOI: 10.14444/8236] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has paved a way for minimally invasive surgical treatment of a wide variety of spine pathologies. Interbody devices are used to stabilize painful disc levels, provide indirect decompression of neural elements, correct deformity, restore lordosis, and provide a sound durable fusion. Through the years, new static and expandable interbody devices have been developed in an attempt to improve radiographic and clinical outcomes in lumbar spine surgery. The purpose of this article is to explore the advantages and disadvantages between static and expandable interbody devices when used in LLIF. Specifically, this article addresses the differences in subsidence, indirect decompression, restoration of lumbar lordosis, complications, patient-reported outcomes, and cost between static and expandable interbody devices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philip Zakko
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan, USA
| | - James D. Whaley
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan, USA
| | - Gordon Preston
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan, USA
| | - Daniel K. Park
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Laterally placed expandable interbody spacers with and without adjustable lordosis improve patient outcomes: a preliminary one-year chart review. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2022; 213:107123. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2022.107123] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2021] [Revised: 01/05/2022] [Accepted: 01/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
|
6
|
Kiapour A, Massaad E, Joukar A, Hadzipasic M, Shankar GM, Goel VK, Shin JH. Biomechanical analysis of stand-alone lumbar interbody cages versus 360° constructs: an in vitro and finite element investigation. J Neurosurg Spine 2021:1-9. [PMID: 34952510 DOI: 10.3171/2021.9.spine21558] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2021] [Accepted: 09/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Low fusion rates and cage subsidence are limitations of lumbar fixation with stand-alone interbody cages. Various approaches to interbody cage placement exist, yet the need for supplemental posterior fixation is not clear from clinical studies. Therefore, as prospective clinical studies are lacking, a comparison of segmental kinematics, cage properties, and load sharing on vertebral endplates is needed. This laboratory investigation evaluates the mechanical stability and biomechanical properties of various interbody fixation techniques by performing cadaveric and finite element (FE) modeling studies. METHODS An in vitro experiment using 7 fresh-frozen human cadavers was designed to test intact spines with 1) stand-alone lateral interbody cage constructs (lateral interbody fusion, LIF) and 2) LIF supplemented with posterior pedicle screw-rod fixation (360° constructs). FE and kinematic data were used to validate a ligamentous FE model of the lumbopelvic spine. The validated model was then used to evaluate the stability of stand-alone LIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) cages with and without supplemental posterior fixation at the L4-5 level. The FE models of intact and instrumented cases were subjected to a 400-N compressive preload followed by an 8-Nm bending moment to simulate physiological flexion, extension, bending, and axial rotation. Segmental kinematics and load sharing at the inferior endplate were compared. RESULTS The FE kinematic predictions were consistent with cadaveric data. The range of motion (ROM) in LIF was significantly lower than intact spines for both stand-alone and 360° constructs. The calculated reduction in motion with respect to intact spines for stand-alone constructs ranged from 43% to 66% for TLIF, 67%-82% for LIF, and 69%-86% for ALIF in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. In flexion and extension, the maximum reduction in motion was 70% for ALIF versus 81% in LIF for stand-alone cases. When supplemented with posterior fixation, the corresponding reduction in ROM was 76%-87% for TLIF, 86%-91% for LIF, and 90%-92% for ALIF. The addition of posterior instrumentation resulted in a significant reduction in peak stress at the superior endplate of the inferior segment in all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS Stand-alone ALIF and LIF cages are most effective in providing stability in lateral bending and axial rotation and less so in flexion and extension. Supplemental posterior instrumentation improves stability for all interbody techniques. Comparative clinical data are needed to further define the indications for stand-alone cages in lumbar fusion surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ali Kiapour
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Elie Massaad
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Amin Joukar
- 2Engineering Center for Orthopedic Research Excellence (E-CORE), Department of Bioengineering Engineering, The University of Toledo, Ohio; and.,3School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
| | - Muhamed Hadzipasic
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Ganesh M Shankar
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Vijay K Goel
- 2Engineering Center for Orthopedic Research Excellence (E-CORE), Department of Bioengineering Engineering, The University of Toledo, Ohio; and
| | - John H Shin
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Does the Choice of Spinal Interbody Fusion Approach Significantly Affect Adjacent Segment Mobility? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2021; 46:E1119-E1124. [PMID: 34618704 DOI: 10.1097/brs.0000000000004058] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN Biomechanical study of range of motion (ROM) at the vertebral levels adjacent to the construct of posterior pedicle screw-rod fixation with different types of lumbar interbody fusion techniques (LIF). OBJECTIVE To investigate the differences in adjacent segment mobility among three types of LIF: lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Previous studies have concluded that LLIF, TLIF, and PLIF with posterior pedicle screw-rod fixation (PSR) provide equivalent stability in cadaveric specimens and are comparable in fusion rate and functional outcome. However, long-term complications, such as adjacent segment degeneration associated with each type of interbody device, are currently unclear. Little is known about the biomechanical effects of interbody fusion technique on the mobility of adjacent segments. METHODS Normalized ROM data at the levels adjacent to L3-L4 PSR fixation with three different types of lumbar interbody fusion approaches (LLIF, TLIF, and PLIF) were analyzed. Intact (n = 21) and instrumented (n = 7 per group) L2-L5 cadaveric specimens were tested multidirectionally under pure moment loading (7.5 Nm). Analysis of variance of adjacent segment ROM among the groups was performed. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS Normalized ROM was significantly greater with PLIF than with LLIF in all directions at both proximal and distal adjacent segments (P ≤ 0.02) except for axial rotation at the distal adjacent segment (P = 0.07). TLIF also had greater normalized ROM than LLIF during lateral bending at the proximal adjacent segment (P = 0.008) and during flexion, extension, and lateral bending at the distal adjacent segment (P ≤ 0.03). Normalized ROM was not significantly different between PLIF and TLIF. CONCLUSION The choice of lumbar interbody fusion approach influences adjacent segment motion in a cadaveric model. LLIF had the least adjacent segment motion.Level of Evidence: 3.
Collapse
|
8
|
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE To determine if the addition of L5-S1 interbody support in long fusion deformity constructs is associated with superior long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes. To compare the 5-year clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications between long fusion constructs with L5-S1 interbody support versus posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Cadaveric biomechanical studies have suggested that an interbody fusion at L5-S1 is beneficial in long fusion constructs with sacropelvic fixation. However, there is limited data reflecting the superiority of interbody support augmentation in optimizing arthrodesis and deformity correction relative to PLF alone. METHODS Eighty-eight consecutive adults with spinal deformity who underwent at minimum T11-pelvis posterior pedicle screw instrumentation with 5-year follow-up were included. Two cohorts were compared based on technique used at the lumbosacral junction (L5-S1): (A) no interbody (PLF; n = 23), or (B) interbody support at L5-S1 (IB; n = 65). Radiographic measurements and clinical outcome measures were compared at multiple time points. Complications were recorded and compared. RESULTS No differences in baseline patient characteristics between cohorts. One nonunion occurred at L5-S1 in the PLF group (P = 0.091). Initial postop sagittal alignment was better in the IB group (PLF: 6.46 cm, IB: 2.48 cm, P = 0.007); however, this was not maintained over long-term follow-up. No significant differences in proximal junctional kyphosis (PLF: 7/23, IB: 9/65, P = 0.076). Proximal junctional failure was more frequent in the PLF group (PLF: 6/23, IB: 6/65, P = 0.043). No significant differences in complications were found. Both cohorts had improvement from baseline pain and functional scores. CONCLUSION There is no absolute long-term advantage for lumbar interbody support in adult spinal deformity patients undergoing spinal arthrodesis to the pelvis.Level of Evidence: 3.
Collapse
|
9
|
Song C, Chang H, Zhang D, Zhang Y, Shi M, Meng X. Biomechanical Evaluation of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Various Fixation Options: A Finite Element Analysis. Orthop Surg 2021; 13:517-529. [PMID: 33619850 PMCID: PMC7957407 DOI: 10.1111/os.12877] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2020] [Revised: 09/23/2020] [Accepted: 10/26/2020] [Indexed: 01/25/2023] Open
Abstract
Objective The aim of the present study was to clarify the biomechanical properties of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) using different fixation methods in normal and osteoporosis spines. Methods Normal and osteoporosis intact finite element models of L1–S1 were established based on CT images of a healthy male volunteer. Group A was the normal models and group B was the osteoporosis model. Each group included four subgroups: (i) intact; (ii) stand‐alone cage (Cage); (iii) cage with lateral plate and two lateral screws (LP); and (iv) cage with bilateral pedicle screws and rods (BPSR). The L3–L4 level was defined as the surgical segment. After validating the normal intact model, compressive load of 400 N and torsional moment of 10 Nm were applied to the superior surface of L2 to simulate flexion, extension, left bending, right bending, left rotation, and right rotation motions. Surgical segmental range of motion (ROM), cage stress, endplate stress, supplemental fixation stress, and stress distribution were analyzed in each group. Results Cage provided the minimal reduction of ROM among all motions (normal, 82.30%–98.81%; osteoporosis, 92.04%–97.29% of intact model). BPSR demonstrated the maximum reduction of ROM (normal, 43.94%–61.13%; osteoporosis, 45.61%–62.27% of intact model). The ROM of LP was between that of Cage and BPSR (normal, 63.25%–79.72%; osteoporosis, 70%–87.15% of intact model). Cage had the minimal cage stress and endplate stress. With the help of LP and BPSR fixation, cage stress and endplate stress were significantly reduced in all motions, both in normal and osteoporosis finite element models. However, BPSR had more advantages. For cage stress, BPSR was at least 75.73% less than that of Cage in the normal model, and it was at least 80.10% less than that of Cage in the osteoporosis model. For endplate stress, BPSR was at least 75.98% less than that of Cage in the normal model, and it was at least 78.06% less than that of Cage in the osteoporosis model. For supplemental fixation stress, BPSR and LP were much less than the yield strength in all motions in the two groups. In addition, the comparison between the two groups showed that the ROM, cage stress, endplate stress, and supplemental fixation stress in the normal model were less than in the osteoporosis model when using the same fixation option of OLIF. Conclusion Oblique lumbar interbody fusion with BPSR provided the best biomechanical stability both in normal and osteoporosis spines. The biomechanical properties of the normal spine were better than those of the osteoporosis spine when using the same fixation option of OLIF.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chengjie Song
- Department of Spinal Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, ShiJiazhuang, China
| | - Hengrui Chang
- Department of Spinal Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, ShiJiazhuang, China
| | - Di Zhang
- Department of Spinal Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, ShiJiazhuang, China
| | - Yingze Zhang
- Department of Spinal Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, ShiJiazhuang, China
| | - Mingxin Shi
- Department of Spinal Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, ShiJiazhuang, China
| | - Xianzhong Meng
- Department of Spinal Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, ShiJiazhuang, China
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Li YM, Frisch RF, Huang Z, Towner J, Li YI, Greeley SL, Ledonio C. Comparative Effectiveness of Expandable Versus Static Interbody Spacers via MIS LLIF: A 2-Year Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes Study. Global Spine J 2020; 10:998-1005. [PMID: 32875829 PMCID: PMC7645091 DOI: 10.1177/2192568219886278] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023] Open
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of expandable interbody spacers to static interbody spacers. METHODS This is a retrospective, institutional review board-exempt chart review of 62 consecutive patients diagnosed with degenerative disc disease who underwent minimally invasive spine surgery lateral lumbar interbody fusion (MIS LLIF) using static or expandable spacers. There were 27 patients treated with static spacers, and 35 with expandable spacers. Radiographic and clinical functional outcomes were collected. Statistical results were significant if P < .05. RESULTS Mean improvement in visual analogue scale back and leg pain scores was significantly greater in the expandable group compared to the static group at 6 and 24 months by 42.3% and 63.8%, respectively (P < .05). Average improvement in Oswestry Disability Index scores was significantly greater in the expandable group than the static group at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months by 28%, 44%, 59%, 53%, and 89%, respectively (P < .05). For disc height, the mean improvement from baseline to 24 months was greater in the static group compared to the expandable group (P < .05). Implant subsidence was significantly greater in the static group (16.1%, 5/31 levels) compared with the expandable group (6.7%, 3/45 levels; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS This study showed positive clinical and radiographic outcomes for patients who underwent MIS LLIF with expandable spacers compared to those with static spacers. Sagittal correction and pain relief was achieved and maintained through 24-month follow-up. The expandable group had a lower subsidence rate than the static group.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yan Michael Li
- University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA,Yan Michael Li, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Rochester, NY 14642, USA.
| | | | - Zheng Huang
- Guanghua Hospital, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
| | - James Towner
- University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Yan Icy Li
- University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Samantha L. Greeley
- Musculoskeletal Education and Research Center (MERC), A Division of Globus Medical, Audubon, PA, USA
| | - Charles Ledonio
- Musculoskeletal Education and Research Center (MERC), A Division of Globus Medical, Audubon, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Laterally placed expandable interbody spacers improve radiographic and clinical outcomes: A 1-year follow-up study. INTERDISCIPLINARY NEUROSURGERY-ADVANCED TECHNIQUES AND CASE MANAGEMENT 2020. [DOI: 10.1016/j.inat.2019.100639] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
|
12
|
Single position spinal surgery for the treatment of grade II spondylolisthesis: A technical note. J Clin Neurosci 2019; 65:145-147. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2019.03.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2019] [Accepted: 03/11/2019] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
|