Biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral pedicle screws fixation for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion after decompressive surgery -- a finite element analysis

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Shih-Heng Chao³  Chih-Wei Wang¹  Wen-Chi Tsai⁴  Shang-Chih Lin¹  Shih-Hao Chen² 

[1] Graduate Institute of Biomedical Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan;Department of Orthopaedics, Tzu-Chi General Hospital at Taichung and Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan;Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Chiao-Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan;BoneCare Orthopedic Centers, Han-Chiung Clinics, Taipei, Taiwan

关键词: Finite element analysis;    Contralateral facet screw;    Pedicle screw fixation;    Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion;   

Others  :  1149863
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-13-72

 received in 2011-08-09, accepted in 2012-04-20,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Little is known about the biomechanical effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cages in different positioning and various posterior implants used after decompressive surgery. The use of the various implants will induce the kinematic and mechanical changes in range of motion (ROM) and stresses at the surgical and adjacent segments. Unilateral pedicle screw with or without supplementary facet screw fixation in the minimally invasive TLIF procedure has not been ascertained to provide adequate stability without the need to expose on the contralateral side. This study used finite element (FE) models to investigate biomechanical differences in ROM and stress on the neighboring structures after TLIF cages insertion in conjunction with posterior fixation.

Methods

A validated finite-element (FE) model of L1-S1 was established to implant three types of cages (TLIF with a single moon-shaped cage in the anterior or middle portion of vertebral bodies, and TLIF with a left diagonally placed ogival-shaped cage) from the left L4-5 level after unilateral decompressive surgery. Further, the effects of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF vs. BPSF) in each TLIF cage model was compared to analyze parameters, including stresses and ROM on the neighboring annulus, cage-vertebral interface and pedicle screws.

Results

All the TLIF cages positioned with BPSF showed similar ROM (<5%) at surgical and adjacent levels, except TLIF with an anterior cage in flexion (61% lower) and TLIF with a left diagonal cage in left lateral bending (33% lower) at surgical level. On the other hand, the TLIF cage models with left UPSF showed varying changes of ROM and annulus stress in extension, right lateral bending and right axial rotation at surgical level. In particular, the TLIF model with a diagonal cage, UPSF, and contralateral facet screw fixation stabilize segmental motion of the surgical level mostly in extension and contralaterally axial rotation. Prominent stress shielded to the contralateral annulus, cage-vertebral interface, and pedicle screw at surgical level. A supplementary facet screw fixation shared stresses around the neighboring tissues and revealed similar ROM and stress patterns to those models with BPSF.

Conclusions

TLIF surgery is not favored for asymmetrical positioning of a diagonal cage and UPSF used in contralateral axial rotation or lateral bending. Supplementation of a contralateral facet screw is recommended for the TLIF construct.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Chen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Brantigan JW, Steffee AD, Lewis ML, Quinn LM, Persenaire JM: Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial. Spine 2000, 25:1437-1446.
• [2]Kuslich SD, Danielson G, Dowdle JD, Sherman J, Fredrickson B, Yuan H, Griffith SL: Four-year follow-up results of lumbar spine arthrodesis using the Bagby and Kuslich lumbar fusion cage. Spine 2000, 25:2656-2562.
• [3]Oxland TR, Lund T, Jost B, Cripton P, Lippuner K, Jaeger P, Nolte LP: The relative importance of vertebral bone density and disc degeneration in spinal flexibility and interbody implant performance. Spine 1996, 21:2558-2569.
• [4]Steffen T, Tsantrizos A, Fruth I: Cage: designs and concepts. Eur Spine J 2000, 9:S89-S94.
• [5]Boden S, Sumner D: Biologic factors affecting spinal fusion and bone regeneration. Spine 1995, 20:S102-S112.
• [6]Lin PM, Cautilli RA, Joyce MF: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Orthop Related Res 1983, 180:154-168.
• [7]Rohlmann A, Zander T, Bergmann G: Comparison of the biomechanical effects of posterior and anterior spine-stabilizing implants. Eur Spine J 2005, 14:445-453.
• [8]Tsantrizos A, Baramki HG, Zeidman S, Steffen T: Segmental stability and compressive strength of posterior lumbar interbody fusion implants. Spine 2000, 25:1899-1907.
• [9]Harms JG, Rollinger H: Die operative Behandlung der Spondylolisthese durch dorsale Aufrichtung und ventrale Verblockung. Z Orthop 1982, 120:343-347.
• [10]Taneichi H, Suda K, Kajino T, Matsumura A, Moridaira H, Kaneda K: Unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and bilateral anterior-column fixation with two Brantigan I/F cages per level: clinical outcomes during a minimum 2-year follow-up period. J Neurosurg Spine 2006, 4:198-205.
• [11]Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Bulsara KR, Thramann JJ: Perioperative complications in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior reconstruction for lumbar disc degeneration and instability. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006, 19:92-97.
• [12]Potter BK, Freedman BA, Verwiebe EG, Hall JM, Polly DW, Kuklo TR: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005, 18:337-346.
• [13]Lauber S, Schulte TL, Liljenqvist U, Halm H, Hackenberg L: Clinical and radiologic 2-4-year results of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Spine 2006, 31:1693-1698.
• [14]Ozgur BM, Yoo K, Rodriguez G, Taylor WR: Minimally-invasive technique for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Eur Spine J 2005, 14:887-894.
• [15]Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, Foley K: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus 2006, 20:E6.
• [16]Peng CWB, Yue WM, Poh SY, Mphyty WY, Tan SB: Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2009, 34:1385-1389.
• [17]Slucky AV, Brodke DS, Bachus KN, Droge JA, Braun JT: Less invasive posterior fixation method following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical analysis. Spine J 2006, 6:78-85.
• [18]Chen HH, Cheung HH, Wang WK, Li Allen, Li KC: Biomechanical analysis of unilateral fixation with interbody cages. Spine 2005, 30:E92-E96.
• [19]Lee CK: Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine 1988, 13:375-377.
• [20]Kim Y: Prediction of mechanical behaviors at interfaces between bone and two interbody cages of lumbar spine segments. Spine 2001, 26:1437-1442.
• [21]Polikeit A, Ferguson SJ, Nolte LP, Orr TE: Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis. Eur Spine J 2003, 12:413-420.
• [22]Goel VK, Grauer JN, Patel TCh, Biyani A, Sairyo K, Vishnubhotla S, Matyas A, Cowgill I, Shaw M, Long R, Dick D, Panjabi MM, Serhan H: Effects of charité artificial disc on the implanted and adjacent spinal segments mechanics using a hybrid testing protocol. Spine 2005, 30:2755-2764.
• [23]Panjabi MM, Henderson G, Abjornson C, Yue J: Multidirectional testing of one- and two-level ProDisc-L versus simulated fusions. Spine 2007, 32:1311-1319.
• [24]Schmidt H, Heuer F, Simon U, Kettler A, Rohlmann A, Claes L, Wilke HH: Application of a new calibration method for a three-dimensional finite element model of a human lumbar annulus fibrosus. Clin Biomech 2006, 21:337-344.
• [25]Chen CS, Cheng CK, Liu CL, Lo WH: Stress analysis of the disc adjacent to interbody fusion in lumbar spine. Med Eng Phys 2001, 23:483-491.
• [26]Chen SH, Zhong ZC, Chen CS, Chen WJ, Hung CH: Biomechanical comparison between lumbar disc arthroplasty and fusion. Med Eng Phys 2009, 31:244-253.
• [27]Chiang MF, Zhong ZC, Chen CS: Biomechanical comparison of instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion with one or two cages by finite element analysis. Spine 2006, 31:E682-E689.
• [28]Zhong ZC, Chen SH, Hung CH: Load and displacement controlled finite element analyses on fusion and non-fusion spinal implants. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 2009, 223:143-157.
• [29]Rohlmann A, Neller S, Claes L, Bergmann G, Wilke HJ: Influence of a follower load on intradiscal pressure and intersegmental rotation of the lumbar spine. Spine 2001, 26:E557-E561.
• [30]Yamamoto I, Panjabi MM, Crisco T, Oxland TR: Three-dimensional movement of the whole lumbar spine and lumbosacral joint. Spine 1989, 14:1256-1260.
• [31]Panjabi MM, Oxland TR, Yamamoto I, Crisco JJ: Mechanical behavior of the human lumbar and lumbosacral spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994, 76:413-424.
• [32]Shirazi-Adl A, Ahmed AM, Shrivastava SC: Mechanical response of a lumbar motion segment in axial torque alone and combined with compression. Spine 1986, 11:914-927.
• [33]Bazrgari B, Shirazi-Adl A, Arjmand N: Analysis of squat and stoop dynamic liftings: muscle forces and internal spinal loads. Eur Spine J 2007, 16(5):687-699.
• [34]Shirazi-Adl A, Sadouk S, Parnianpour M, Pop D, El-Rich M: Muscle force evaluation and the role of posture in human lumbar spine under compression. Eur Spine J 2002, 11(6):519-526.
• [35]Liu CL, Zhong ZC, Hsu HW, Shih SL, Wang ST, Hung C, Chen CS: Effect of the cord pretension of the Dynesys dynamic stabilisation system on the biomechanics of the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis. Eur Spine J 2011, 20(11):1850-1858.
• [36]Goel VK, Panjabi MM, Patwardhan AG, Dooris AP, Serhan H: Test protocols for evaluation of spinal implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006, 88:103-109.
• [37]Jang JS, Lee SH: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with ipsilateral pedicle screw and contralateral facet screw fixation. J Neurosurg Spine 2005, 3:218-223.
• [38]Sethi A, Lee S, Vaidya R: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using unilateral pedicle screws and a translaminar screw. Eur Spine J 2009, 18:430-434.
• [39]Goel VK, Lim TH, Gwon J: Effects of rigidity of an internal fixation device: a comprehensive biomechanical investigation. Spine 1991, 16:S155-S161.
• [40]Harris BM, Hilibrand AS, Savas PE: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: the effect of various instrumentation techniques on the flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine 2005, 30:E562-E566.
• [41]Suk KS, Lee HM, Kim NH: Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spinal fusion. Spine 2000, 25:1843-1847.
• [42]Lu YM, Hutton WC, Gharpuray VM: Do bending, twisting, and diurnal fluid changes in the disc affect the propensity to prolapse? A viscoelastic finite elements model. Spine 1996, 21:2570-2579.