Biomechanical analysis of Instrumented decompression and Interbody fusion procedures in Lumbar spine: a finite element analysis study.
Finite element method
Lumbar spine
Pedicle screws
Posterior lumbar interbody fusion
Spine biomechanics
Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
Journal
Medical & biological engineering & computing
ISSN: 1741-0444
Titre abrégé: Med Biol Eng Comput
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7704869
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2023
Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
28
09
2021
accepted:
09
03
2023
medline:
20
6
2023
pubmed:
28
3
2023
entrez:
27
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Interbody fusions have become increasingly popular to achieve good fusion rates. Also, unilateral instrumentation is favored to minimize soft tissue injury with limited hardware. Limited finite element studies are available in the literature to validate these clinical implications. A three-dimensional, non-linear ligamentous attachment finite element model of L3-L4 was created and validated. The intact L3-L4 model was modified to simulate procedures like laminectomy with bilateral pedicle screw Instrumentation, transforaminal, and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF and PLIF, respectively) with unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation. Compared to instrumented laminectomy, interbody procedures showed a considerable reduction in range of motion (RoM) in extension and torsion (6% and 12% difference, respectively). Both TLIF and PLIF showed comparable RoM in all movements with < 5% difference in reduction of RoM between them. Bilateral instrumentation showed a more significant decrease in RoM (> 5% difference) in the entire range of motion except in torsion when compared to unilateral instrumentation. The maximum difference in reduction in RoM was noted in lateral bending (24% and 26% for PLIF and TLIF, respectively), while the least difference in Left torsion (0.6% and 3.6% for PLIF and TLIF, respectively) in comparing bilateral with unilateral instrumentation. Interbody fusion procedures were found to be biomechanically more stable in extension and torsion than the instrumented laminectomy. Single-level TLIF and PLIF achieved a similar reduction in RoM with a < 5% difference. Bilateral screw fixation proved biomechanically superior to unilateral fixation in the entire range of motion except in torsion.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36971956
doi: 10.1007/s11517-023-02825-y
pii: 10.1007/s11517-023-02825-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1875-1886Informations de copyright
© 2023. International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering.
Références
Ravindra VM, Senglaub SS, Rattani A, Dewan MC, Härtl R, Bisson E, Park KB, Shrime MG (2018) Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: Estimating Global Incidence and Worldwide Volume. Global Spine J 8(8):784–794
doi: 10.1177/2192568218770769
pubmed: 30560029
pmcid: 6293435
Gibson JA, Grant IC, Waddell G (1999) The Cochrane review of surgery for lumbar disc prolapse and degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Spine 24(17):1820–1832
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199909010-00012
pubmed: 10488513
Yadav S, Singh S, Arya RK, Kumar A, Kumar I, Jha A (2020) Comparative analysis of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral instrumented fusion in degenerative lumbar spine disorders. J Orthop, Trauma Rehabil 27(2):173–178
Høy K, Bünger C, Niederman B, Helmig P, Hansen ES, Li H, Andersen T (2013) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 22(9):2022–2029
doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-2760-2
pubmed: 23584162
pmcid: 3777065
Zhang BF, Ge CY, Zheng BL, Hao DJ (2016) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylosis: A meta-analysis. Med 95(40):e4995
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004995
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(1):2–18
pubmed: 27683674
pmcid: 5039869
de Kunder SL, van Kuijk SM, Rijkers K, Caelers IJ, van Hemert WL, 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(11):1712–1721
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.06.018
pubmed: 28647584
Lan T, Hu SY, Zhang YT, Zheng YC, Zhang R, Shen Z, Yang XJ (2018) Comparison between posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 112:86–93
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.01.021
pubmed: 29367001
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(6):700–708
doi: 10.3171/2009.12.SPINE09123
pubmed: 20515358
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. Operative Neurosurg 72(1):21–26
Ames CP, Acosta FL Jr, Chi J, Iyengar J, Muiru W, Acaroglu E, Puttlitz CM (2005) Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion performed at 1 and 2 levels. Spine 30(19):E562–E566
doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000180505.80347.b1
pubmed: 16205329
Liu H, Xu Y, Yang S-D, Wang T, Wang H, Liu FY, Ding WY (2017) Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with posterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis. Med 96(21):e6882
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006882
Zhao Y, Yang S, Ding W (2019) Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar fusion: A systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. PLoS One 14(12):e0226848
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226848
pubmed: 31860651
pmcid: 6924673
Ambati DV, Wright EK Jr, Lehman RA Jr, Kang DG, Wagner SC, Dmitriev AE (2015) Bilateral pedicle screw fixation provides superior biomechanical stability in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element study. Spine J 15(8):1812–1822
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.06.015
pubmed: 24983669
Chen SH, Lin SC, Tsai WC, Wang CW, Chao SH (2012) Biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral pedicle screws fixation for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion after decompressive surgery–a finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 13(1):72
doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-72
pubmed: 22591664
pmcid: 3503692
Umale S, Yoganandan N, Baisden JL, Choi H, Kurpad SN (2022) A biomechanical investigation of lumbar interbody fusion techniques. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 125:104961
doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104961
pubmed: 34781226
Fagan MJ, Julian S, Mohsen AM (2002) Finite element analysis in spine research. Proc Inst Mech Eng 216(5):281–298
doi: 10.1243/09544110260216568
Chen CS, Cheng CK, Liu CL, Lo WH (2001) Stress analysis of the disc adjacent to interbody fusion in lumbar spine. Med Eng Phys 23(7):483–491
doi: 10.1016/S1350-4533(01)00076-5
pubmed: 11574255
Pintar FA, Yoganandan N, Myers T, Elhagediab A, Sances A Jr (1992) Biomechanical properties of human lumbar spine ligaments. J Biomech 25(11):1351–1356
doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(92)90290-H
pubmed: 1400536
Rohlmann A, Bauer L, Zander T, Bergmann G, Wilke HJ (2006) Determination of trunk muscle forces for flexion and extension by using a validated finite element model of the lumbar spine and measured in vivo data. J Biomech 39(6):981–989
doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.02.019
pubmed: 16549091
Goel V, Monroe B, Gilbertson L, Brinckmann P (1995) Interlaminar shear stresses and laminae separation in a disc: finite element analysis of the L3–L4 motion unit subjected to axial compressive loads. Spine 20(6):689–698
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199503150-00010
pubmed: 7604345
Yamamoto I, Panjabi MM, Crisco T, Oxland TOM (1989) Three-dimensional movements of the whole lumbar spine and lumbosacral joint. Spine 14(11):1256–1260
doi: 10.1097/00007632-198911000-00020
pubmed: 2603060
Zander T, Rohlmann A, Klöckner C, Bergmann G (2003) Influence of graded facetectomy and laminectomy on spinal biomechanics. Eur Spine J 12(4):427–434
doi: 10.1007/s00586-003-0540-0
pubmed: 12720068
pmcid: 3467787
Farrokhi MR, Yadollahikhales G, Gholami M, Mousavi SR, Mesbahi AR, Asadi-Pooya AA (2018) Clinical Outcomes of Posterolateral Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Degenerative Instability. Pain Physician 21(4):383–406
doi: 10.36076/ppj.2018.4.383
pubmed: 30045595
Yijian Z, Hao L, Huilin Y, Bin P (2018) Comparison of posterolateral fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis: Analysis of spino-pelvic sagittal balance and postoperative chronic low back pain. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 171:1–5
doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.04.020
pubmed: 29800807
Campbell RC, Mobbs RJ, Lu VM, Xu J, Rao PJ, Phan K (2017) Posterolateral Fusion Versus Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Global Spine J 7(5):482–490
doi: 10.1177/2192568217701103
pubmed: 28811993
pmcid: 5544162
Lu T, Lu Y (2019) Comparison of Biomechanical Performance Among Posterolateral Fusion and Transforaminal, Extreme, and Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Analysis. World Neurosurg 129:e890–e899
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.06.074
pubmed: 31226452
Vamvanij V, Ferrara LA, Hai Y, Zhao J, Kolata R, Yuan HA (2001) Quantitative changes in spinal canal dimensions using interbody distraction for spondylolisthesis. Spine 26(3):B1–B6
doi: 10.1097/00007632-200102010-00004
Park JS, Kim YB, Hong HJ, Hwang SN (2005) Comparison between posterior and transforaminal approaches for lumbar interbody fusion. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 37(5):340–344
Lu P, Pan T, Dai T, Chen G, Shi K (2018) Is unilateral pedicle screw fixation superior than bilateral pedicle screw fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 13(1):296
doi: 10.1186/s13018-018-1004-x
pubmed: 30466462
pmcid: 6249771
Ren C, Qin R, Sun P, Wang P (2017) Effectiveness and safety of unilateral pedicle screw fixation in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137(4):441–450
doi: 10.1007/s00402-017-2641-y
pubmed: 28168642
Kim HJ, Kang KT, Chang BS, Lee CK, Kim JW, Yeom JS (2014) Biomechanical analysis of fusion segment rigidity upon stress at both the fusion and adjacent segments: a comparison between unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation. Yonsei Med J 55(5):1386–1394
doi: 10.3349/ymj.2014.55.5.1386
pubmed: 25048501
pmcid: 4108828
Yang M, Sun G, Guo S, Zeng C, Yan M, Han Y, Xia D, Zhang J, Li X, Xiang Y, Pan J, Li L, Tan J (2017) The Biomechanical Study of Extraforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Three-Dimensional Finite-Element Analysis. J Healthc Eng 2017:1–8
Slucky AV, Brodke DS, Bachus KN, Droge JA, Braun JT (2006) Less invasive posterior fixation method following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical analysis. Spine J 6(1):78–85
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2005.08.003
pubmed: 16413452