Biomechanical efficacy of a combined interspinous fusion system with a lumbar interbody fusion cage

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 997-1001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yeong-Hyeon Kim ◽  
Tae-Gon Jung ◽  
Eun-Young Park ◽  
Guen-Woo Kang ◽  
Kyung-Ah Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion System ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Cage ◽  
Interbody Fusion Cage

Management of Infected Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage in Posterior Degenerative Lumbar Spine Surgery

2019 ◽  
Vol 126 ◽  
pp. e330-e341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chia-Wei Chang ◽  
Tsai-Sheng Fu ◽  
Wen-Jer Chen ◽  
Chien-Wen Chen ◽  
Po-Liang Lai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spine ◽  
Fusion Cage ◽  
Interbody Fusion Cage

Biomechanical comparison of transdiscal fixation and posterior fixation with and without transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of L5–S1 lumbosacral joint

2018 ◽  
Vol 232 (4) ◽  
pp. 371-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hakan Özalp ◽  
Mustafa Özkaya ◽  
Onur Yaman ◽  
Teyfik Demir
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Axial Compression ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Cage ◽  
Interbody Fusion Cage

Transdiscal screw fixation is generally performed in the treatment of high-grade L5–S1 spondylolisthesis. The main thought of the study is that the biomechanical performances of the transdiscal pedicle screw fixation can be identical to standard posterior pedicle screw fixations with or without transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage insertion. Lumbosacral portions and pelvises of 45 healthy lambs’ vertebrae were dissected. Animal cadavers were randomly and equally divided into three groups for instrumentation. Three fixation systems, L5–S1 posterior pedicle screw fixation, L5–S1 posterior pedicle screw fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage insertion, and L5–S1 transdiscal pedicle screw fixation, were generated. Axial compression, flexion, and torsion tests were conducted on test samples of each system. In axial compression, L5–S1 transdiscal fixation was less stiff than L5–S1 posterior pedicle screw fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage insertion. There were no significant differences between groups in flexion. Furthermore, L5–S1 posterior fixation was stiffest under torsional loads. When axial compression and flexion loads are taken into consideration, transdiscal fixation can be alternatively used instead of posterior pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of L5–S1 spondylolisthesis because it satisfies enough stability. However, in torsion, posterior fixation is shown as a better option due to its higher stiffness.

A biomechanical and histological evaluation of a bioresorbable lumbar interbody fusion cage

Biomaterials ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 26 (15) ◽  
pp. 2643-2651 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshihiro Hojo ◽  
Yoshihisa Kotani ◽  
Manabu Ito ◽  
Kuniyoshi Abumi ◽  
Tsuyoshi Kadosawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Histological Evaluation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Cage ◽  
Interbody Fusion Cage

scholarly journals Biomechanics of an Expandable Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Deployed Through Transforaminal Approach

10.14444/4024 ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Conti Mica ◽  
Leonard I. Voronov ◽  
Gerard Carandang ◽  
Robert M. Havey ◽  
Bartosz Wojewnik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Approach ◽  
Fusion Cage ◽  
Interbody Fusion Cage

scholarly journals Current Concepts of Contemporary Expandable Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Designs, Part 1: An Editorial on Their Biomechanical Characteristics

10.14444/7128 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (s3) ◽  
pp. S63-S67
Author(s):  
Boyle C. Cheng ◽  
Isaac Swink ◽  
Rachelle Yusufbekov ◽  
Michele Birgelen ◽  
Lisa Ferrara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Cage ◽  
Interbody Fusion Cage

scholarly journals Intraoperative antepulsion of a posterior lumbar interbody fusion cage: three case reports

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davut Ceylan ◽  
Can Yaldiz ◽  
Kiyasettin Asil ◽  
Tibet Kaçira ◽  
Necati Tatarli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Cage ◽  
Interbody Fusion Cage

scholarly journals Imaging anatomy and clinical significance of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal oblique fixation from posterior corner in lumbar spine

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Feifei Chen ◽  
Xiaoyang Liu ◽  
Jianmin Sun ◽  
Jun Xin ◽  
Cheng Su ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Axial Plane ◽  
Minor Trauma ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
One Stop ◽  
Anatomic Basis ◽  
Fusion Cage ◽  
Interbody Fusion Cage

Abstract BackgroundPercutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF) has been widely discussed due to its advantages of less trauma, less bleeding, quick recovery, high safety, and relatively fewer complications, as well as other adverse factors such as incomplete decompression, steep learning curve, low fusion rate, and high radiation risk. It can keep the posterior structure of spine intact to the greatest extent, ensure the stability of spine after surgery, and achieve decompression with minor trauma. However, posterior percutaneous pedicle screws are often needed for fusion and fixation after decompression, and additional posterior trauma, postural changes and anesthesia methods are often required. Interbody fixation and fusion are often independent and not one-stop completion. The authors consider whether the percutaneous spinal endoscopy can be used to achieve complete decompression and fusion under a single minimally invasive channel, while achieving one-stop endoscopic decompression, fusion and fixation. The purpose of this paper is to provide the anatomic feasibility for oblique fixation by measuring the imaging anatomic parameters, especially to provide the anatomic basis for the design of new endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion cage.Methods Sixty volunteers (22 men and 38 women) who underwent lumbar CT scans were collected and sent to the GEAW4.4 workstation. The distances from posterior corner in the lumbar spine to the corresponding targets of the contralateral anterior corner and the included angles between each path line in sagittal and axial plane were measured and analyzed statistically.Results In the medium group, PC path was the shortest, PA path and PB path had little difference (P=0.123), with no statistical significance. In the full-length group, PF path was the shortest, and there was no significant difference between PD path and PE path (P =0.177). PE was the optimal path. The included angles a1, a2, a3, b1, b2, and b3 in sagittal plane and c1, c2 and c3 in axial plane were significantly different (P=0.000), namely, a1 >a2>a3, b1>b2>b3, and c1<c2<c3. Conclusions This study provides anatomic feasibility for percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal oblique fixation from posterior corner in lumbar spine and particularly provides anatomic basis for the design of new endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion cage.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document