Residual motion of different posterior instrumentation and interbody fusion constructs.
Facet-sparing
Interbody fusion
PLIF
TLIF
Unilateral
Journal
European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
ISSN: 1432-0932
Titre abrégé: Eur Spine J
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9301980
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2023
04 2023
Historique:
received:
12
07
2022
accepted:
08
02
2023
revised:
06
02
2023
medline:
11
4
2023
pubmed:
24
2
2023
entrez:
23
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To elucidate residual motion of cortical screw (CS) and pedicle screw (PS) constructs with unilateral posterior lumbar interbody fusion (ul-PLIF), bilateral PLIF (bl-PLIF), facet-sparing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (fs-TLIF), and facet-resecting TLIF (fr-TLIF). A total of 35 human cadaver lumbar segments were instrumented with PS (n = 18) and CS (n = 17). Range of motion (ROM) and relative ROM changes were recorded in flexion/extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), axial rotation (AR), lateral shear (LS), anterior shear (AS), and axial compression (AC) in five instrumentational states: without interbody fusion (wo-IF), ul-PLIF, bl-PLIF, fs-TLIF, and fr-TLIF. Whereas FE, LB, AR, and AC noticeably differed between the instrumentational states, AS and LS were less prominently affected. Compared to wo-IF, ul-PLIF caused a significant increase in ROM with PS (FE + 42%, LB + 24%, AR + 34%, and AC + 77%), however, such changes were non-significant with CS. ROM was similar between wo-IF and all other interbody fusion techniques. Insertion of a second PLIF (bl-PLIF) significantly decreased ROM with CS (FE -17%, LB -26%, AR -20%, AC -51%) and PS (FE - 23%, LB - 14%, AR - 20%, AC - 45%,). Facet removal in TLIF significantly increased ROM with CS (FE + 6%, LB + 9%, AR + 17%, AC of + 23%) and PS (FE + 7%, AR + 12%, AC + 13%). bl-PLIF and TLIF show similarly low residual motion in both PS and CS constructs, but ul-PLIF results in increased motion. The fs-TLIF technique is able to further decrease motion compared to fr-TLIF in both the CS and PS constructs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36820922
doi: 10.1007/s00586-023-07597-5
pii: 10.1007/s00586-023-07597-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1411-1420Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ (2015) Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg 1:2–18. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2414-469X.2015.10.05
doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2414-469X.2015.10.05
pubmed: 27683674
pmcid: 5039869
Meng B, Bunch J, Burton D, Wang J (2021) Lumbar interbody fusion: recent advances in surgical techniques and bone healing strategies. Eur Spine J 30:22–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06596-0
doi: 10.1007/s00586-020-06596-0
pubmed: 32949311
Reisener MJ, Pumberger M, Shue J, Girardi FP, Hughes AP (2020) Trends in lumbar spinal fusion-a literature review. J Spine Surg 6:752–761
doi: 10.21037/jss-20-492
pubmed: 33447679
pmcid: 7797794
Matsukawa K, Yato Y (2017) Lumbar pedicle screw fixation with cortical bone trajectory: a review from anatomical and biomechanical standpoints. Spine Surg Relat Res 1:164–173
doi: 10.22603/ssrr.1.2017-0006
pubmed: 31440629
pmcid: 6698564
Briggs H, Milligan PR (1944) Chip fusion of the low back following exploration of the spinal canal. JBJS 26:125–130
Cloward RB (1953) The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 10:154–168. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1953.10.2.0154
doi: 10.3171/jns.1953.10.2.0154
pubmed: 13035484
Brantigan JW, Steffee AD, Geiger JM (1991) A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Mech test Spine 16:S277-282. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199106001-00020
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199106001-00020
Brantigan JW, Steffee AD (1993) A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients. Spine 18:2106–2107. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199310001-00030
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199310001-00030
pubmed: 8272967
Lee JH, Lee JH, Yoon KS, Kang SB, Jo CH (2008) Comparative study of unilateral and bilateral cages with respect to clinical outcomes and stability in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 63:109–113. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.Neu.0000335077.62599.F0
doi: 10.1227/01.Neu.0000335077.62599.F0
pubmed: 18728575
Fogel GR, Toohey JS, Neidre A, Brantigan JW (2007) Is one cage enough in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of unilateral single cage interbody fusion to bilateral cages. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:60–65. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bsd.0000211251.59953.a4
doi: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000211251.59953.a4
pubmed: 17285054
Harms JG, Jeszenszky D (1998) Die posteriore, lumbale, interkorporelle fusion in unilateraler transforaminaler technik. Oper Orthop Traumatol 10:90–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-006-0112-7
doi: 10.1007/s00064-006-0112-7
pubmed: 17332991
Abumi K, Panjabi MM, Kramer KM, Duranceau J, Oxland T, Crisco JJ (1990) Biomechanical evaluation of lumbar spinal stability after graded facetectomies. Spine 15:1142–1147. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199011010-00011
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199011010-00011
pubmed: 2267608
Morgenstern C, Yue JJ, Morgenstern R (2020) Full percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the facet-sparing, trans-kambin approach. Clin Spine Surg 33:40–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000827
doi: 10.1097/bsd.0000000000000827
pubmed: 31162179
Kim HS, Wu PH, Sairyo K, Jang IT (2021) A narrative review of uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of uniportal facet-preserving trans-kambin endoscopic fusion and uniportal facet-sacrificing posterolateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Int J Spine Surg 15:S72-s83
doi: 10.14444/8166
pubmed: 34974422
pmcid: 9421270
Widmer J, Cornaz F, Scheibler G, Spirig JM, Snedeker JG, Farshad M (2020) Biomechanical contribution of spinal structures to stability of the lumbar spine-novel biomechanical insights. Spine J 20:1705–1716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2020.05.541
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2020.05.541
pubmed: 32474224
Cornaz F, Burkhard M, Fasser MR, Spirig JM, Snedeker JG, Farshad M, Widmer J (2021) 3D printed clamps for fixation of spinal segments in biomechanical testing. J Biomech 125:110577
doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110577
pubmed: 34214860
Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L (1998) Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J 7:148–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s005860050045
doi: 10.1007/s005860050045
pubmed: 9629939
pmcid: 3611233
Harris BM, Hilibrand AS, Savas PE, Pellegrino A, Vaccaro AR, Siegler S, Albert TJ (2004) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: the effect of various instrumentation techniques on the flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:E65–E70. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000113034.74567.86
doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000113034.74567.86
pubmed: 15094547
Godzik J, Kalb S, Reis MT, Reyes PM, Singh V, Newcomb A, Chang SW, Kelly BP, Crawford NR (2018) Biomechanical evaluation of interbody fixation with secondary augmentation: lateral lumbar interbody fusion versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Spine Surg 4:180–186
doi: 10.21037/jss.2018.05.07
pubmed: 30069505
pmcid: 6046322
Xu H, Tang H, Guan X, Jiang F, Xu N, Ju W, Zhu X, Zhang X, Zhang Q, Li M (2013) Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by finite element analysis. Neurosurgery 72:21–26. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182742a69
doi: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182742a69
pubmed: 23037820
Ntilikina Y, Charles YP, Persohn S, Skalli W (2020) Influence of double rods and interbody cages on quasistatic range of motion of the spine after lumbopelvic instrumentation. Eur spine J 29:2980–2989. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06594-2
doi: 10.1007/s00586-020-06594-2
pubmed: 32936405
Mummaneni PV, Dhall SS, Eck JC, Groff MW, Ghogawala Z, Watters WC 3rd, Dailey AT, Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Sharan A, Wang JC, Kaiser MG (2014) Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 11: interbody techniques for lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 21:67–74. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.4.Spine14276
doi: 10.3171/2014.4.Spine14276
pubmed: 24980588
Xu M, Yang J, Lieberman I, Haddas R (2019) Stress distribution in vertebral bone and pedicle screw and screw-bone load transfers among various fixation methods for lumbar spine surgical alignment: a finite element study. Med Eng Phys 63:26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2018.10.003
doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2018.10.003
pubmed: 30344069
Kim DH, Hwang RW, Lee GH, Joshi R, Baker KC, Arnold P, Sasso R, Park D, Fischgrund J (2020) Comparing rates of early pedicle screw loosening in posterolateral lumbar fusion with and without transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 20:1438–1445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2020.04.021
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2020.04.021
pubmed: 32387295
Sim HB, Murovic JA, Cho BY, Lim TJ, Park J (2010) Biomechanical comparison of single-level posterior versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions with bilateral pedicle screw fixation: segmental stability and the effects on adjacent motion segments. J Neurosurg Spine 12:700–708. https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.12.Spine09123
doi: 10.3171/2009.12.Spine09123
pubmed: 20515358
Yang E-Z, Xu J-G, Liu X-K, Jin G-Y, Xiao W, Zeng B-F, Lian X-F (2016) An RCT study comparing the clinical and radiological outcomes with the use of PLIF or TLIF after instrumented reduction in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 25:1587–1594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4341-z
doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-4341-z
pubmed: 26649555
Makanji H, Schoenfeld AJ, Bhalla A, Bono CM (2018) Critical analysis of trends in lumbar fusion for degenerative disorders revisited: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcomes. Eur Spine J 27:1868–1876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5544-x
doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5544-x
pubmed: 29546538
de Kunder SL, van Kuijk SMJ, Rijkers K, Caelers I, van Hemert WLW, de Bie RA, van Santbrink H (2017) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J 17:1712–1721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.06.018
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.06.018
pubmed: 28647584
Zagra A, Scaramuzzo L, Galbusera F, Minoia L, Archetti M, Giudici F (2015) Biomechanical and clinical study of single posterior oblique cage POLIF in the treatment of degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 24(Suppl 7):924–930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4273-7
doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-4273-7
pubmed: 26441256
Cho JH, Hwang CJ, Lee DH, Lee CS (2021) Clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparisons between unilateral and bilateral cage insertion. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 22:963. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04852-y
doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04852-y
pubmed: 34789224
pmcid: 8600703
Schreiber A, Leu H (1989) Restabilisation intervertebrale et arthrodese intersomatique percutanee: possibilites aujourd’hui. Rachis 1:173–179
Kambin P, Brager MD (1987) Percutaneous posterolateral discectomy: anatomy and mechanism. Clin Orthop Relat Res 223:145–154
doi: 10.1097/00003086-198710000-00016
Yamada K, Nagahama K, Abe Y, Murota E, Hiratsuka S, Takahata M, Iwasaki N (2021) Unintentional fusion in preserved facet joints without bone grafting after percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine Surg Relat Res 5:390–396
doi: 10.22603/ssrr.2020-0232
pubmed: 34966865
pmcid: 8668217
Matsukawa K, Kato T, Yato Y, Sasao H, Imabayashi H, Hosogane N, Asazuma T, Chiba K (2016) Incidence and risk factors of adjacent cranial facet joint violation following pedicle screw insertion using cortical bone trajectory technique. Spine 41:E851-e856. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001459
doi: 10.1097/brs.0000000000001459
pubmed: 26796712
Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Kato T, Imabayashi H, Asazuma T, Nemoto K (2014) In vivo analysis of insertional torque during pedicle screwing using cortical bone trajectory technique. Spine 39:E240-245. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000116
doi: 10.1097/brs.0000000000000116
pubmed: 24253778
Santoni BG, Hynes RA, McGilvray KC, Rodriguez-Canessa G, Lyons AS, Henson MA, Womack WJ, Puttlitz CM (2009) Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws. Spine J 9:366–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2008.07.008
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.07.008
pubmed: 18790684
Perez-Orribo L, Kalb S, Reyes PM, Chang SW, Crawford NR (2013) Biomechanics of lumbar cortical screw-rod fixation versus pedicle screw-rod fixation with and without interbody support. Spine 38:635–641. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318279a95e
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318279a95e
pubmed: 23104197
Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Imabayashi H, Hosogane N, Asazuma T, Nemoto K (2015) Biomechanical evaluation of the fixation strength of lumbar pedicle screws using cortical bone trajectory: a finite element study. J Neurosurg Spine 23:471–478. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.1.Spine141103
doi: 10.3171/2015.1.Spine141103
pubmed: 26161515
Marengo N, Berjano P, Cofano F, Ajello M, Zenga F, Pilloni G, Penner F, Petrone S, Vay L, Ducati A, Garbossa D (2018) Cortical bone trajectory screws for circumferential arthrodesis in lumbar degenerative spine: clinical and radiological outcomes of 101 cases. Eur Spine J 27:213–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5599-8
doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5599-8
pubmed: 29663147