Preservation of Motion in Spine Surgery

Effect of electrical stimulation on the fusion rate after spinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Electrical stimulation is an important adjuvant therapy for spinal surgery, but whether receiving electrical stimulation can improve the fusion rate after spinal surgery is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to analyse and evaluate the effect of electrical stimulation on the fusion rate after spinal surgery. We systematically searched for related articles published in the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases on or before September 30, 2023. The odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and the fusion rates of the experimental group and the control group were calculated by a random-effects meta-analysis model. The analysis showed that receiving electrical stimulation significantly increased the probability of successful spinal fusion (OR 2.66 [95% CI 1.79-3.97]), and the average fusion rate of the electrical stimulation group (86.8%) was significantly greater than that of the control group (73.7%). The fusion rate in the direct current (DC) stimulation group was 2.33 times greater than that in the control group (OR 2.33 [95% CI 1.37-3.96]), and that in the pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) group was 2.60 times greater than that in the control group (OR 2.60 [95% CI 1.29-5.27]). Similarly, the fusion rate in the capacitive coupling (CC) electrical stimulation group was 3.44 times greater than that in the control group (OR 3.44 [95% CI 1.75-6.75]), indicating that regardless of the type of electrical stimulation, the fusion rate after spinal surgery improved to a certain extent. Electrical stimulation as an adjuvant therapy seems to improve the fusion rate after spinal surgery to a certain extent, but the specific effectiveness of this therapy needs to be further studied.

Biomechanical evaluation of different oblique lumbar interbody fusion constructs: a finite element analysis

BACKGROUND

Finite element analysis (FEA) was performed to investigate the biomechanical differences between different adjunct fixation methods for oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and to further analyze its effect on adjacent segmental degeneration.

METHODS

We built a single-segment (Si-segment) finite element model (FEM) for L4-5 and a double-segment (Do-segment) FEM for L3-5. Each complete FEM was supplemented and modified, and both developed two surgical models of OLIF with assisted internal fixation. They were OLIF with posterior bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw (TINA system) fixation (OLIF + BPS) and OLIF with lateral plate system (OLIF + LPS). The range of motion (ROM) and displacement of the vertebral body, cage stress, adjacent segment disc stress, and spinal ligament tension were recorded for the four models during flexion/extension, right/left bending, and right/left rotation by applying follower load.

RESULTS

For the BPS and LPS systems in the six postures of flexion, extension, right/left bending, and right/left rotation, the ROM of L4 in the Si-segment FEM were 0.32°/1.83°, 0.33°/1.34°, 0.23°/0.47°, 0.24°/0.45°, 0.33°/0.79°, and 0.34°/0.62°; the ROM of L4 in the Do-segment FEM were 0.39°/2.00°, 0.37°/1.38°, 0.23°/0.47°, 0.21°/0.44°, 0.33°/0.57°, and 0.31°/0.62°, and the ROM of L3 in the Do-segment FEM were 6.03°/7.31°, 2.52°/3.50°, 4.21°/4.38°, 4.21°/4.42°, 2.09°/2.32°, and 2.07°/2.43°. BPS system had less vertebral displacement, less cage maximum stress, and less spinal ligament tension in Si/Do-segment FEM relative to the LPS system. BPS system had a smaller upper adjacent vertebral ROM, greater intervertebral disc stress in terms of left and right bending as well as left and right rotation compared to the LPS system in the L3-4 of the Do-segment FEM. There was little biomechanical difference between the same fixation system in the Si/Do-segment FEM.

CONCLUSIONS

Our finite element analysis showed that compared to OLIF + LPS, OLIF + BPS (TINA) is more effective in reducing interbody stress and spinal ligament tension, and it better maintains the stability of the target segment and provides a better fusion environment to resist cage subsidence. However, OLIF + BPS (TINA) may be more likely to cause adjacent segment degeneration than OLIF + LPS.