Biomechanical Evaluation of Cortical Bone Trajectory Fixation with Traditional Pedicle Screw in the Lumbar Spine: A Finite Element Study

Hybrid cortical bone trajectory and modified cortical bone trajectory techniques in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at L4-L5 segment: A finite element analysis

Background

The academia has increasingly acknowledged the superior biomechanical performance of the hybrid fixation technique in recent years. However, there is a lack of research on the hybrid fixation technique using BCS (Bilateral Cortical Screws) and BMCS (Bilateral Modified Cortical Screws). This study aims to investigate the biomechanical performance of the BCS and BMCS hybrid fixation technique in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at the L4-L5 segment in a complete lumbar-sacral finite element model.

Methods

Three cadaver specimens are used to construct three lumbar-sacral finite element models. The biomechanical properties of various fixation technologies (BCS-BCS, BMCS-BMCS, BMCS-BCS, and BCS-BMCS) are evaluated at the L4-5 segment with a TLIF procedure conducted, including the range of motion (ROM) of the L4-5 segment, as well as the stress experienced by the cage, screws, and rods. The testing is conducted under specific loading conditions, including a compressive load of 400 N and a torque of 7.5Nm, subjecting the model to simulate flexion, extension, lateral bending, and rotation.

Results

No significant variations are seen in the ROM at the L4-5 segment when comparing the four fixation procedures during flexion and extension. However, when it comes to lateral bending and rotation, the ROM is ordered in descending order as BCS-BCS, BCS-BMCS, BMCS-BMCS, and BMCS-BCS. The maximum stress experienced by the cage is observed to be highest within the BMCS-BCS technique during movements including flexion, extension, and lateral bending. Conversely, the BMCS-BMCS technique exhibits the highest cage stress levels during rotational movements. The stress applies to the screws and rods order the sequence of BCS-BCS, BCS-BMCS, BMCS-BCS, and BMCS-BMCS throughout all four working conditions.

Conclusion

The BMCS-BCS technique shows better biomechanical performance with less ROM and lower stress on the internal fixation system compared to other fixation techniques. BMCS-BMCS technology has similar mechanical performance to BMCS-BCS but has more contact area between screws and cortical bone, making it better for patients with severe osteoporosis.

Hybrid pedicle screw and modified cortical bone trajectory technique in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at L4-L5 segment: finite element analysis

BACKGROUND

Investigate the biomechanical properties of the hybrid fixation technique with bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) and bilateral modified cortical bone trajectory screw (BMCS) in L4-L5 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

METHODS

 Three finite element (FE) models of the L1-S1 lumbar spine were established according to the three human cadaveric lumbar specimens. BPS-BMCS (BPS at L4 and BMCS at L5), BMCS-BPS (BMCS at L4 and BPS at L5), BPS-BPS (BPS at L4 and L5), and BMCS-BMCS (BMCS at L4 and L5) were implanted into the L4-L5 segment of each FE model. The range of motion (ROM) of the L4-L5 segment, von Mises stress of the fixation, intervertebral cage, and rod were compared under a 400-N compressive load with 7.5 Nm moments in flexion, extension, bending, and rotation.

RESULTS

 BPS-BMCS technique has the lowest ROM in extension and rotation, and BMCS-BMCS technique has the lowest ROM in flexion and lateral bending. The BMCS-BMCS technique showed maximal cage stress in flexion and lateral bending, and the BPS-BPS technique in extension and rotation. Compared to the BPS-BPS and BMCS-BMCS technique, BPS-BMCS technique presented a lower risk of screw breakage and BMCS-BPS technique presented a lower risk of rod breakage.

CONCLUSION

 The results of this study support that the use of the BPS-BMCS and BMCS-BPS techniques in TLIF surgery for offering the superior stability and a lower risk of cage subsidence and instrument-related complication.

Recent advancement in finite element analysis of spinal interbody cages: A review

Finite element analysis (FEA) is a widely used tool in a variety of industries and research endeavors. With its application to spine biomechanics, FEA has contributed to a better understanding of the spine, its components, and its behavior in physiological and pathological conditions, as well as assisting in the design and application of spinal instrumentation, particularly spinal interbody cages (ICs). IC is a highly effective instrumentation for achieving spinal fusion that has been used to treat a variety of spinal disorders, including degenerative disc disease, trauma, tumor reconstruction, and scoliosis. The application of FEA lets new designs be thoroughly "tested" before a cage is even manufactured, allowing bio-mechanical responses and spinal fusion processes that cannot easily be experimented upon in vivo to be examined and "diagnosis" to be performed, which is an important addition to clinical and in vitro experimental studies. This paper reviews the recent progress of FEA in spinal ICs over the last six years. It demonstrates how modeling can aid in evaluating the biomechanical response of cage materials, cage design, and fixation devices, understanding bone formation mechanisms, comparing the benefits of various fusion techniques, and investigating the impact of pathological structures. It also summarizes the various limitations brought about by modeling simplification and looks forward to the significant advancement of spine FEA research as computing efficiency and software capabilities increase. In conclusion, in such a fast-paced field, the FEA is critical for spinal IC studies. It helps in quantitatively and visually demonstrating the cage characteristics after implanting, lowering surgeons' learning costs for new cage products, and probably assisting them in determining the best IC for patients.

Novel Dual-Threaded Pedicle Screws Provide Fixation Stability That Is Comparable to That of Traditional Screws with Relative Bone Preservation: An In Vitro Biomechanical Study

Replacement with larger diameter screws is always used in pedicle screw loosening but carries a risk of pedicle wall violation. A pedicle screw with more preserved bone stock is the preferred primary fixation choice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a newly designed proximal-conical dual-thread screw with less bone occupancy provides fixation strength comparable to that of a traditional screw. Six types of pedicle screws based on three different shapes (cylindrical, conical, and proximal-conical) and two thread profiles (single-thread and dual-thread) were grouped. Conical and proximal-conical screws differed mainly in the slope of the outer diameter from the hub to the tip. Conical screws had an outer diameter (6.5 mm) that differed from the hub and tapered by 30% to an outer diameter (4.5 mm) at the tip and proximal-conical screws had the same outer diameter from the hub and tapered by 30% (4.5 mm) at 20 mm from the hub and then maintained the outer diameter (45 mm) to the tip. A total of 36 L4 Sawbones® vertebrae were used in the study and six trials for each screw group. The results of the imaging, screw volume in bone, insertion torque, and pullout force were analyzed. For screws with the same shape, insertion torque and pullout force were significantly higher for those in the dual-thread groups than for those in the single-thread groups (p < 0.05). For screws with the same thread profile, there was no significant difference in either biomechanical test between the different screw shapes (p > 0.05). Our results demonstrated that these proximal-conical dual-thread screws, with the property of relative bone stock preservation, display a comparable biomechanical performance to traditional dual-thread screws and a better performance than single-thread screws. This screw design could serve as the primary pedicle screw choice to reduce revision difficulty.

Investigating the Effects of Different Sizes of Silicone Rubber Vacuum Extractors during the Course of Delivery on the Fetal Head: A Finite Element Analysis Study

During certain clinical situations, some parturients require instruments for operative vaginal delivery, and various designs of vacuum extractors may affect the fetal head. To investigate the biomechanical effects of divergent sizes of silicone rubber vacuum extractors, we employed finite element analysis in this study. First, we constructed computer models for different vacuum extractor sizes (diameters: 40 mm, 50 mm, 60 mm, and 70 mm), flat surface, hemispherical ball, and fetal head shape. A hemispherical ball was the main design for the vacuum extractor model, and the material used for the vacuum extractor was silicone rubber. Next, the settings of 1 mm vacuum extractor displacement and vacuum cap pressure of 60 cmHg were applied. The main observation markers of this study were the respective von Mises stresses on the vacuum extractor and skull by the reaction force on the fixed end. The concluded results revealed that vacuum extractors with larger diameters lead to greater reaction force, stress, and strain on fetal heads. Therefore, this study’s biomechanical analytic consequences suggest that clinicians avoid selecting larger vacuum extractors during operative instrumental delivery so that fetal heads will experience less external force, deformation, and resultant complications. It could also provide a practical reference for obstetricians for instrumental vaginal delivery with the vacuum extractor made of silicone rubber.