Fundamentals of Mechanobiology and Potential Applications in Spinal Fusion

BACKGROUND

Mechanobiology can help optimize spinal fusion by providing insights into the mechanical environment required for bone healing and fusion. This includes understanding the optimal loading conditions, the mechanical properties of implanted materials, and the effects of mechanical stimuli on the cells involved in bone formation. The present article reviews the evidence for surface technologies and implant modification of spinal cages in enhancing spinal fusion.

METHODS

Databases used included Embase, MEDLINE, Springer, and Cochrane Library. Relevant articles were identified using specific keywords and search fields. Only systematic reviews, meta-analyses, review articles, and original research articles in English were included. Two researchers independently performed the search and selection process. A flowchart of the search strategy and study selection method is provided in the article.

RESULTS

The studies indicate that surface modification can significantly enhance osseointegration and interbody fusion by promoting cellular adhesion, proliferation, differentiation, and mineralization. Various surface modification techniques such as coating, etching, nanotopography, and functionalization achieve this. Similarly, implant material modification can improve implant stability, biocompatibility, and bioactivity, leading to better fusion outcomes. Mechanobiology plays a vital role in this process by influencing the cellular response to mechanical cues and promoting bone formation.

CONCLUSIONS

The studies reviewed indicate that surface technologies and implant material modification are promising approaches for improving the success of spinal cage fusion. Mechanobiology is critical in this process by influencing the cellular response to mechanical signals and promoting bone growth.

A systematic review of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF)

PURPOSE

The rate of elective lumbar fusion has continued to increase over the past two decades. However, there remains to be a consensus on the optimal fusion technique. This study aims to compare stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with posterior fusion techniques in patients with spondylolisthesis and degenerative disc disease through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by searching the Cochrane Register of Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 2022. In the two-stage screening process, three reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts. The full-text reports of the remaining studies were then inspected for eligibility. Conflicts were resolved through consensus discussion. Two reviewers then extracted study data, assessed it for quality, and analysed it.

RESULTS

After the initial search and removal of duplicate records, 16,435 studies were screened. Twenty-one eligible studies (3686 patients) were ultimately included, which compared stand-alone ALIF with posterior approaches such as posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). A meta-analysis showed surgical time and blood loss was significantly lower in ALIF than in TLIF/PLIF, but not in those who underwent PLF (p = 0.08). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in ALIF than in TLIF, but not in PLIF or PLF. Fusion rates were similar between the ALIF and posterior approaches. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain were not significantly different between the ALIF and PLIF/TLIF groups. However, VAS back pain favoured ALIF over PLF at one year (n = 21, MD - 1.00, CI - 1.47, - 0.53), and at two years (2 studies, n = 67, MD - 1.39, CI - 1.67, - 1.11). The VAS leg pain scores (n = 46, MD 0.50, CI 0.12 to 0.88) at two years significantly favoured PLF. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at one year were not significantly different between ALIF and the posterior approaches. At two years, ODI scores were also similar between the ALIF and the TLIF/PLIF. However, the ODI scores at two years (2 studies, n = 67, MD - 7.59, CI - 13.33, - 1.85) significantly favoured ALIF over PLF (I² = 70%). The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score (JOAS) for low back pain at one year (n = 21, MD - 0.50, CI - 0.78) and two years (two studies, n = 67, MD - 0.36, CI - 0.65, - 0.07) significantly favoured ALIF over PLF. No significant differences were found in leg pain at the 2-year follow-up. Adverse events displayed no significant differences between the ALIF and posterior approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Stand-alone-ALIF demonstrated a shorter operative time and less blood loss than the PLIF/TLIF approach. Hospitalisation time is reduced with ALIF compared with TLIF. Patient-reported outcome measures were equivocal with PLIF or TLIF. VAS and JOAS, back pain, and ODI scores mainly favoured ALIF over PLF. Adverse events were equivocal between the ALIF and posterior fusion approaches.