Dataset Information

Biomechanical evaluation of strategies for adjacent segment disease after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: is the extension of pedicle screws necessary?

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is a well-known complication after interbody fusion. Pedicle screw-rod revision possesses sufficient strength and rigidity. However, is a surgical segment with rigid fixation necessary for ASD reoperation? This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical effect of different instrumentation on lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for ASD treatment. METHODS:A validated L2~5 finite element (FE) model was modified for simulation. ASD was considered the level cranial to the upper-instrumented segment (L3/4). Bone graft fusion in LLIF with bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) fixation occurred at L4/5. The ASD segment for each group underwent a) LLIF + posterior extension of BPS, b) PLIF + posterior extension of BPS, c) LLIF + lateral screw, and d) stand-alone LLIF. The L3/4 range of motion (ROM), interbody cage stress and strain, screw-bone interface stress, cage-endplate interface stress, and L2/3 nucleus pulposus of intradiscal pressure (NP-IDP) analysis were calculated for comparisons among the four models. RESULTS:All reconstructive models displayed decreased motion at L3/4. Under each loading condition, the difference was not significant between models a and b, which provided the maximum ROM reduction (73.8 to 97.7% and 68.3 to 98.4%, respectively). Model c also provided a significant ROM reduction (64.9 to 77.5%). Model d provided a minimal restriction of the ROM (18.3 to 90.1%), which exceeded that of model a by 13.1 times for flexion-extension, 10.3 times for lateral bending and 4.8 times for rotation. Model b generated greater cage stress than other models, particularly for flexion. The maximum displacement of the cage and the peak stress of the cage-endplate interface were found to be the highest in model d under all loading conditions. For the screw-bone interface, the stress was much greater with lateral instrumentation than with posterior instrumentation. CONCLUSIONS:Stand-alone LLIF is likely to have limited stability, particularly for lateral bending and axial rotation. Posterior extension of BPS can provide reliable stability and excellent protective effects on instrumentation and endplates. However, LLIF with the use of an in situ screw may be an alternative for ASD reoperation.

SUBMITTER: Liang Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7035718 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Biomechanical evaluation of strategies for adjacent segment disease after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: is the extension of pedicle screws necessary?

Liang Ziyang Z Cui Jianchao J Zhang Jiarui J He Jiahui J Tang Jingjing J Ren Hui H Ye Linqiang L Liang De Jiang Xiaobing X

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20200221 1

<h4>Background</h4>Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is a well-known complication after interbody fusion. Pedicle screw-rod revision possesses sufficient strength and rigidity. However, is a surgical segment with rigid fixation necessary for ASD reoperation? This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical effect of different instrumentation on lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for ASD treatment.<h4>Methods</h4>A validated L2~5 finite element (FE) model was modified for simulation. ASD was co ...[more]

PMID: 32085708

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has been widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disorders and shows favourable clinical results. Recently, cortical bone trajectory (CBT) has become a new trajectory for screw insertion in the lumbar spine. Several biomechanical studies have demonstrated that the CBT technique achieves screw purchase and strength greater than the traditional method. Currently, the available data on the clinical effectiveness of the two performed surgeries, TLIF with CBT screws (CBT-TLIF) and TLIF with traditional pedicle screws (PS-TLIF), are insufficient. This is the first randomised study to compare CBT-TLIF against traditional PS fixation and will provide recommendations for treating patients with lumbar degenerative disc disorders. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A blinded randomised controlled trial (blinding for the patient and statistician, rather than for the clinician and researcher) will be conducted. A total of 254 participants with lumbar disc degenerative disease who are candidates for TLIF surgery will be randomly allocated to either the CBT-TLIF group or the PS-TLIF group at a ratio of 1:1. The primary clinical outcome measures are the incidence of adjacent cranial facet joint violation, fusion rate and the screw loosening rate. Secondary clinical outcome measures are Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of back pain, VAS of leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, operative time, intraoperative blood loss and complications. These parameters will be evaluated on day 3, and then at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University (batch: 2017-03). The results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals and an international spine-related meeting after completion of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03105167; Pre-results.

Project description:Pedicles are often broken when screws are inserted into hard pedicles with small diameters or when the diameter of the screw itself is inadequate. However, there is a lack of biomechanical literature that addresses screw loosening as a result of broken pedicles or the resulting salvage of those screws. We performed a novel in vitro study to compare the pullout strength of screws between intact pedicles and two different types of broken pedicles; strategies to prevent screw loosening were also compared. Thirty L4 Sawbones were designed to represent intact pedicles, semi-pedicles, and nonpedicles and were prepared for screw insertion. Three sizes of polyaxial screws (diameter × length dimensions of 6.0 mm × 45 mm, 6.0 mm × 50 mm and 6.5 mm × 45 mm) were independently and randomly distributed into the intact-pedicle group (IP group, n = 30), the semi-pedicle group (SP group, n = 15), or the nonpedicle group (NP group, n = 15). The experiments were conducted across a minimum of five trials for each of the chosen screw sizes. We then analyzed the results of the imaging, pullout testing, and embedded bone volume. Any fractures or defects of the vertebrae caused by screw insertion were excluded from the study. The appropriate screw trajectory and insertional depth were confirmed using axial and sagittal X-ray imaging prior to screw pullout testing. A pullout strength of only 41% to 45% for the SP group and 29% to 39% for the NP group was retained following a broken pedicle. The use of longer or larger-diameter screws appears to be an effective salvaging procedure for the NP group (p < 0.05). The embedded bone volume percentage analysis indicated that, compared to the IP group, 68% to 76% of effective bone embedded into the screw threads in the SP group, and 58% to 65% in the NP group. There was no direct correlation between the pullout strength and the embedded bone volume; however, less effective embedded bone volume was associated with lower pullout strength. This study describes the evolution of the well-established screw pullout test being applied to the broken pedicle Sawbone testing model. The pedicle plays an important role in determining the pullout strength of a screw. However, a salvage procedure that utilizes a longer or larger-diameter screw might be a reliable clinical approach to address broken pedicles.

Project description:ObjectiveTo observe the clinical and radiological effect of crenel lateral interbody fusion (CLIF) procedure in the management of lumbar spine adjacent segment degenerative (ASD).MethodsThirty-seven patients with lumbar spine ASD who underwent the CLIF procedure between June 2018 and December 2019 were included in the study. There were 13 males and 24 females, with a mean age of 64.30 ± 5.92 years. The VAS score of the back (VAS_Back) and legs (VAS_Leg), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, the height of the intervertebral space (HIS), the height of the intervertebral foramen (HIF), the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the vertebral canal, segmental lordosis (SL), and lumbar lordosis (LL) were recorded before the operation, 2 weeks after the operation, 3 months after the operation, and at the last follow-up respectively. Clinical and radiological outcomes before and after the surgery were compared, and correlation and regression analyses were performed.ResultsThere were no vascular and nerve-related complications during the operation. The average follow-up time was 16.63 ± 4.24 months. The median of both VAS_Back and VAS_Leg was 7 before surgery and 1 at the last follow-up. Meanwhile, the average preoperative ODI score, HIS, HIF, CSA of the vertebral canal, LL, and SL was (67.48 ± 7.17) %, (4.80 ± 0.73) mm, (12.95 ± 2.07) mm, (59.52 ± 9.22) mm2 , (37.22 ± 5.92)° and (4.78 ± 1.99)°, respectively. At the final follow-up, ODI score, HIS, HIF, CSA of the vertebral canal, LL, and SL was (7.07 ± 2.66) %, (9.44 ± 0.61) mm, (17.30 ± 1.90) mm, (70.49 ± 8.95) mm2 , (44.67 ± 6.38)° and (13.44 ± 3.27)°, respectively. In the VAS_Back, VAS_Leg, ODI score, LL, SL, HIS, HIF, and CSA of the vertebral canal, the difference between preoperative and 2 weeks after the operation, 3 months after the operation, and the last follow-up were statistically significant (P < 0.05). However, the difference was not statistically significant between each time point after the operation in the CSA of the vertebral canal, LL, and SL (P > 0.05). Nonetheless, the difference was statistically significant in ODI between each time point after the operation (P < 0.05). VAS_Leg was associated with HIS, HIF, and CSA of the vertebral canal, while LL and SL were risk factors for low back pain.ConclusionCrenel lateral interbody fusion is an effective procedure in the management of lumbar ASD. Not only was the postoperative swift recovery due to minimal invasion, but also adequate LL and SL were achievable.

Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) are widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. In the present study, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical and radiographic efficacy of these two procedures.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed, and the quality of retrieved studies was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Clinical outcomes, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, improvement in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) effectiveness rate and complications, in addition to radiographic outcomes, including restoration of disc height, disc angle, overall lumbar lordosis, fusion rate and subsidence, were extracted and input into a fixed or random effect model to compare the efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.ResultsSeven qualified studies were included. Clinically, OLIF resulted in less intraoperative blood loss and shorter operation time than MIS-TLIF. Improvement of VAS for leg pain was more obvious in the OLIF group (P < 0.0001), whereas improvement of VAS for back pain (P = 0.08) and ODI (P = 0.98) as well as JOABPEQ effectiveness rate (P = 0.18) were similar in the two groups. Radiographically, OLIF was more effective in restoring disc height (P = 0.01) and equivalent in improving the disc angle (P = 0.18) and lumbar lordosis (P = 0.48) compared with MIS-TLIF. The fusion rate (P = 0.11) was similar in both groups, while the subsidence was more severe in the MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.00001).ConclusionsThe above evidence suggests that OLIF is associated with a shorter operation time (with supplementary fixation in the prone position) and less intraoperative blood loss than MIS-TLIF and can lead to better leg pain alleviation, disc height restoration and subsidence resistance. No differences regarding back pain relief, functional recovery, complications, disc angle restoration, lumbar lordosis restoration and fusion rate were found. However, due to the limited number of studies, our results should be confirmed with high-level studies to fully compare the therapeutic efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.Trial registrationPROSPERO ID: CRD42020201903 .

Dataset Information

Biomechanical evaluation of strategies for adjacent segment disease after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: is the extension of pedicle screws necessary?

Publications

Biomechanical evaluation of strategies for adjacent segment disease after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: is the extension of pedicle screws necessary?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets