Biomechanical analysis of stand-alone lumbar interbody cages versus 360° constructs: an in vitro and finite element investigation

Cyclic testing of standalone ALIF versus TLIF in lumbosacral spines of low bone mineral density: an ex vivo biomechanical study

PURPOSE

Screwed anterior lumbar interbody fusion (SALIF) alleviates the need for supplemental posterior fixation leading to reduction of perioperative morbidity. Specifically, elderly and multimorbid patients would benefit from shorter operative time and faster recovery but tend to have low bone mineral density (BMD). The current study aimed to compare loosening, defined as increase of ROM and NZ, of SALIF versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) under cyclic loading in cadaveric spines with reduced BMD.

METHODS

Twelve human spines (L4-S2; 6 male 6 female donors; age 70.6 ± 19.6; trabecular BMD of L5 84.2 ± 24.4 mgHA/cm3, range 51-119 mgHA/cm3) were assigned to two groups. SALIF or TLIF were instrumented at L5/S1. Range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ) were assessed before and after axial cyclic loading (0-1150 N, 2000 cycles, 0.5 Hz) in flexion-extension (Flex-Ext), lateral bending, (LB), axial rotation (AR).

RESULTS

ROM of the SALIF specimens increased significantly in all loading directions (p ≤ 0.041), except for left AR (p = 0.053), whereas for TLIF it increased significantly in left LB (p = 0.033) and Flex (p = 0.015). NZ of SALIF showed increase in Flex-Ext and LB, whereas NZ of TLIF did not increase significantly in any motion direction.

CONCLUSIONS

Axial compression loading caused loosening of SALIF in Flex-Ext and LB, but not TLIF at L5/S1 in low BMD specimens. Nevertheless, Post-cyclic ROM and NZ of SALIF is comparable to TLIF. This suggests that, neither construct is optimal for the use in patients with reduced BMD.

Stress Distribution of Different Pedicle Screw Insertion Techniques Following Single-Segment TLIF: A Finite Element Analysis Study

OBJECTIVES

At present, a variety of posterior lumbar internal fixation implantation methods have been developed, which makes it difficult for spine surgeons to choose. The stress distribution of the internal fixation system is one of the important indexes to evaluate these technologies. Common insertion technologies include Roy Camille, Magerl, Krag, AO, and Weinstein insertion techniques. This study aimed to compare the distribution of von Mises stresses in different screw fixation systems established by these insertion technologies.

METHODS

Here, the three-dimensional finite element (FE) method was selected to evaluate the postoperative stress distribution of internal fixation. Following different pedicle screw insertion techniques, five single-segment transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) models were established after modeling and validation of the L1-S1 vertebrae FE model.

RESULTS

By analyzing the data, we found that stress concentration phenomenon was in all the models. Additionally, Roy-Camille, Krag, AO, and Weinstein insertion techniques led to the great stress on lumbar vertebra, intervertebral disc, and screw-rod fixation systems. Therefore, we hope that the results can provide ideas for clinical work and development of pedicle screws in the future. It is worth noting that flexion, unaffected side lateral bending, and affected side axial rotation should be limited for the patients with cages implanted.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, our method obtained the results that Magerl insertion technique was the relatively safe approach for pedicle screw implantation due to its relatively dispersive stress in TLIF models.

Instrumentation choice and early radiographic outcome following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF): Lateral instrumentation versus posterior pedicle screw fixation

Background

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a minimally invasive fusion procedure that may be performed with or without supplemental instrumentation. However, there is a paucity of evidence on the effect of supplemental instrumentation technique on perioperative morbidity and fusion rate in LLIF.

Methods

A single-institutional retrospective review of patients who underwent LLIF for lumbar spondylosis was conducted. Patients were grouped according to supplemental instrumentation technique: stand-alone LLIF, LLIF with laterally placed instrumentation, or LLIF with posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF). Outcomes included fusion rates, peri-operative complication, and reoperation; estimated blood loss (EBL); surgery duration; length of stay; and length of follow-up.

Results

82 patients underwent LLIF at 114 levels. 35 patients (42.7%) received supplemental lateral instrumentation, 30 (36.6%) received supplemental PPSF, and 17 (20.7%) underwent stand-alone LLIF. More patients in the lateral instrumentation group had prior lumbar fusion at adjacent levels (23/35, 65.71%) versus stand-alone (3/17, 17.6%) or PPSF (2/30, 6.67%) groups (p = 0.003). 4/17 patients (23.5%) with stand-alone LLIF and 4/35 patients (11.42%) with lateral instrumentation underwent reoperation, versus 0/30 with PPSF (p = 0.030). There was no difference in fusion rates between groups (p = 0.717). Operation duration was longer in patients with PPSF (p < 0.005) and length of follow-up was longer for PPSF than lateral instrumentation (p = 0.001). Choice of instrumentation group was a statistically significant predictor of reoperation.

Conclusions

While rates of complete radiographic fusion on imaging follow-up didn't differ, patients receiving PPSF were less likely than stand-alone or lateral instrumentation groups to require reoperation, though operative time was significantly longer. Further study of choice of supplemental instrumentation with LLIF is indicated.