Dataset Information

Biomechanical effects of lumbar fusion surgery on adjacent segments using musculoskeletal models of the intact, degenerated and fused spine.

ABSTRACT: Adjacent segment disorders are prevalent in patients following a spinal fusion surgery. Postoperative alterations in the adjacent segment biomechanics play a role in the etiology of these conditions. While experimental approaches fail to directly quantify spinal loads, previous modeling studies have numerous shortcomings when simulating the complex structures of the spine and the pre/postoperative mechanobiology of the patient. The biomechanical effects of the L4-L5 fusion surgery on muscle forces and adjacent segment kinetics (compression, shear, and moment) were investigated using a validated musculoskeletal model. The model was driven by in vivo kinematics for both preoperative (intact or severely degenerated L4-L5) and postoperative conditions while accounting for muscle atrophies. Results indicated marked changes in the kinetics of adjacent L3-L4 and L5-S1 segments (e.g., by up to 115% and 73% in shear loads and passive moments, respectively) that depended on the preoperative L4-L5 disc condition, postoperative lumbopelvic kinematics and, to a lesser extent, postoperative changes in the L4-L5 segmental lordosis and muscle injuries. Upper adjacent segment was more affected post-fusion than the lower one. While these findings identify risk factors for adjacent segment disorders, they indicate that surgical and postoperative rehabilitation interventions should focus on the preservation/restoration of patient's normal segmental kinematics.

SUBMITTER: Ebrahimkhani M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8429534 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundAdjacent segment disease (ASDz) is a potential complication following lumbar spinal fusion. A common nomenclature based on etiology and ASDz type does not exist and is needed to assist with clinical prognostication, decision making, and management.Questions/purposesThe objective of this study was to develop an etiology-based classification system for ASDz following lumbar fusion.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of 65 consecutive patients who had undergone both a lumbar fusion performed by a single surgeon and a subsequent procedure for ASDz. We established an etiology-based classification system for lumbar ASDz with the following six categories: "degenerative" (degenerative disc disease or spondylosis), "neurologic" (disc herniation, stenosis), "instability" (spondylolisthesis, rotatory subluxation), "deformity" (scoliosis, kyphosis), "complex" (fracture, infection), or "combined." Based on this scheme, we determined the rate of ASDz in each etiologic category.ResultsOf the 65 patients, 27 (41.5%) underwent surgery for neurogenic claudication or radiculopathy for adjacent-level stenosis or disc herniation and were classified as "neurologic." Ten patients (15.4%) had progressive degenerative disc pathology at the adjacent level and were classified as "degenerative." Ten patients (15.4%) had spondylolisthesis or instability and were classified as "instability," and three patients (4.6%) required revision surgery for adjacent-level kyphosis or scoliosis and were classified as "deformity." Fifteen patients (23.1%) had multiple diagnoses that included a combination of categories and were classified as "combined."ConclusionThis is the first study to propose an etiology-based classification scheme of ASDz following lumbar spine fusion. This simple classification system may allow for the grouping and standardization of patients with similar pathologies and thus for more specific pre-operative diagnoses, personalized treatments, and improved outcome analyses.

Project description:BackgroundTransforaminal 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.Methods12 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsDespite 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.

Project description: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.

Dataset Information

Biomechanical effects of lumbar fusion surgery on adjacent segments using musculoskeletal models of the intact, degenerated and fused spine.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets