Dataset Information

A Biomechanical Stability Study of Extraforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion on the Cadaveric Lumbar Spine Specimens.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is an effective surgery for lumbar degenerative disease. However, this fusion technique requires resection of inferior facet joint to provide access for superior facet joint resection, which results in reduced lumbar spinal stability and unnecessary trauma. We have previously developed extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ELIF) that can avoid back muscle injury with direct nerve root decompression. This study aims to show that ELIF enhances lumbar spinal stability in comparison to TLIF by comparing lumbar spinal stability of L4-L5 range of motion (ROM) on 12 cadaveric spine specimens after performing TLIF or ELIF.

Methods

12 cadaveric spine specimens were randomly divided and treated in accordance with the different internal fixations, including ELIF with a unilateral pedicle screw (ELIF+UPS), TLIF with a unilateral pedicle screw (TLIF+UPS), TLIF with a bilateral pedicle screw (TLIF+BPS), ELIF with a unilateral pedicle screw and translaminar facet screw (ELIF+UPS+TLFS) and ELIF with a bilateral pedicle screw (ELIF+BPS). The treatment groups were exposed to a 400-N load and 6 N·m movement force to calculate the angular displacement of L4-L5 during anterior flexion, posterior extension, lateral flexion and rotation operation conditions.

Results

The ROM in ELIF+UPS group was smaller than that of TLIF+UPS group under all operating conditions, with the significant differences in left lateral flexion and right rotation by 36.15% and 25.97% respectively. The ROM in ELIF+UPS group was higher than that in TLIF+BPS group. The ROM in the ELIF+UPS+TLFS group was much smaller than that in the ELIF+UPS group, but was not significantly different than that in the TLIF+BPS group.

Conclusions

Despite that TLIF+BPS has great stability, which can be comparable by that of ELIF+UPS. Additionally, ELIF stability can be further improved by using translaminar facet screws without causing more tissue damage to patient.

SUBMITTER: Guo S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5178989 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate finite element biomechanical properties of the novel transpedicular transdiscal (TPTD) screw fixation with interbody arthrodesis technique in lumbar spine.MethodsAn L4-L5 finite element model was established and validated. Then, two fixation models, TPTD screw system and bilateral pedicle screw system (BPSS), were established on the validated L4-L5 finite element model. The inferior surface of the L5 vertebra was set immobilised, and moment of 7.5 Nm was applied on the L4 vertebra to test the range of motion (ROM) and stress at flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation.ResultsThe intact model was validated for prediction accuracy by comparing two previously published studies. Both of TPTD and BPSS fixation models displayed decreased motion at L4-L5. The ROMs of six moments of flexion, extension, left lateral bending, right lateral bending, left axial rotation and right axial rotation in TPTD model were 1.92, 2.12, 1.10, 1.11, 0.90 and 0.87°, respectively; in BPSS model, they were 1.48, 0.42, 0.35, 0.38, 0.74 and 0.75°, respectively. The screws' peak stress of above six moments in TPTD model was 182.58, 272.75, 133.01, 137.36, 155.48 and 150.50 MPa, respectively; and in BPSS model, it was 103.16, 129.74, 120.28, 134.62, 180.84 and 169.76 MPa, respectively.ConclusionBoth BPSS and TPTD can provide stable biomechanical properties for lumbar spine. The decreased ROM of flexion, extension and lateral bending was slightly more in BPSS model than in TPTD model, but TPTD model had similar ROM of axial rotation with BPSS model. The screws' peak stress of TPTD screw focused on the L4-L5 intervertebral space region, and more caution should be put at this site for the fatigue breakage.The translational potential of this articleOur finite element study provides the biomechanical properties of novel TPTD screw fixation, and promotes this novel transpedicular transdiscal screw fixation with interbody arthrodesis technique be used clinically.

Project description:BackgroundLumbar interbody fusion is among the most common types of spinal surgery performed. Over time, the term has evolved to encompass a number of different approaches to the intervertebral space, as well as differing implant materials. Questions remain over which approaches and materials are best for achieving fusion and restoring disc height.Questions/purposesWe reviewed the literature on the advantages and disadvantages of various methods and devices used to achieve and augment fusion between the disc spaces in the lumbar spine.MethodsUsing search terms specific to lumbar interbody fusion, we searched PubMed and Google Scholar and identified 4993 articles. We excluded those that did not report clinical outcomes, involved cervical interbody devices, were animal studies, or were not in English. After exclusions, 68 articles were included for review.ResultsPosterior approaches have advantages, such as providing 360° support through a single incision, but can result in retraction injury and do not always restore lordosis or correct deformity. Anterior approaches allow for the largest implants and good correction of deformities but can result in vascular, urinary, psoas muscle, or lumbar plexus injury and may require a second posterior procedure to supplement fixation. Titanium cages produce improved osteointegration and fusion rates but also increase subsidence caused by the stiffness of titanium relative to bone. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has an elasticity closer to that of bone and shows less subsidence than titanium cages, but as an inert compound PEEK results in lower fusion rates and greater osteolysis. Combination PEEK-titanium coating has not yet achieved better results. Expandable cages were developed to increase disc height and restore lumbar lordosis, but the data on their effectiveness have been inconclusive. Three-dimensionally (3D)-printed cages have shown promise in biomechanical and animal studies at increasing fusion rates and reducing subsidence, but additive manufacturing options are still in their infancy and require more investigation.ConclusionsAll of the approaches to spinal fusion have plusses and minuses that must be considered when determining which to use, and newer-technology implants, such as PEEK with titanium coating, expandable, and 3D-printed cages, have tried to improve upon the limitations of existing grafts but require further study.

Project description:Study Design Randomized controlled trial. Objective Despite a large number of publications of outcomes after spinal fusion surgery, there is still no consensus on the efficacy of the several different fusion methods. The aim of this study was to determine whether transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) results in an improved clinical outcome compared with uninstrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) in the surgical treatment for chronic low back pain. Methods This study included 135 patients with degenerative disk disease (n = 96) or postdiskectomy syndrome (n = 39). Inclusion criteria were at least 1 year of back pain with or without leg pain in patients aged 20 to 65 with one- or two-level disease. Exclusion criteria were sequestration of disk hernia, psychosocial instability, isthmic spondylolisthesis, drug abuse, and previous spine surgery other than diskectomy. Pain was assessed by visual analog scale (pain index). Functional disability was quantified by the disability rating index and Oswestry Disability Index. The global outcome was assessed by the patient and classified as much better, better, unchanged, or worse. The patients were randomized to conventional uninstrumented PLF (n = 67) or TLIF (n = 68). PLF was performed in a standardized fashion using autograft. TLIF was performed with pedicle titanium screw fixation and a porous tantalum interbody spacer with interbody and posterolateral autograft. The clinical outcome measurements were obtained preoperatively and at 12 and 24 months postoperatively. The 2-year follow-up rate was 98%. Results The two treatment groups improved significantly from preoperatively to 2 years' follow-up. At final follow-up, the results in the TLIF group were significantly superior to those in the PLF group in pain index (2.0 versus 3.9, p = 0.007) and in disability rating index (22 versus 36, p = 0.003). The Oswestry Disability Index was better in the TLIF group (20 versus 28, p = 0.110, not significant). The global assessment was clearly superior in the TLIF group: 63% of patients scored "much better" in the TLIF group as compared with 48% in the PLF group (p = 0.017). Conclusions The results of the current study support the use of TLIF rather than uninstrumented PLF in the surgical treatment of the degenerative lumbar spine. The less optimal outcome after uninstrumented PLF may be explained by the much higher reoperation rate.