scholarly journals Biomechanical Analysis of Cortical Versus Pedicle Screw Fixation Stability in TLIF, PLIF, and XLIF Applications

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward K. Nomoto ◽  
Guy R. Fogel ◽  
Alexandre Rasouli ◽  
Justin V. Bundy ◽  
Alexander W. Turner
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Cortical Screw ◽  
Flexion Extension

Study Design: Cadaveric biomechanical study. Objectives: Medial-to-lateral trajectory cortical screws are of clinical interest due to the ability to place them through a less disruptive, medialized exposure compared with conventional pedicle screws. In this study, cortical and pedicle screw trajectory stability was investigated in single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) constructs. Methods: Eight lumbar spinal units were used for each interbody/screw trajectory combination. The following constructs were tested: TLIF + unilateral facetectomy (UF) + bilateral pedicle screws (BPS), TLIF + UF + bilateral cortical screws (BCS), PLIF + medial facetectomy (MF) + BPS, PLIF + bilateral facetectomy (BF) + BPS, PLIF + MF + BCS, PLIF + BF + BCS, XLIF + BPS, XLIF + BCS, and XLIF + bilateral laminotomy + BCS. Range of motion (ROM) in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation was assessed using pure moments. Results: All instrumented constructs were significantly more rigid than intact ( P < .05) in all test directions except TLIF + UF + BCS, PLIF + MF + BCS, and PLIF + BF + BCS in axial rotation. In general, XLIF and PLIF + MF constructs were more rigid (lowest ROM) than TLIF + UF and PLIF + BF constructs. In the presence of substantial iatrogenic destabilization (TLIF + UF and PLIF + BF), cortical screw constructs tended to be less rigid (higher ROM) than the same pedicle screw constructs in lateral bending and axial rotation; however, no statistically significant differences were found when comparing pedicle and cortical fixation for the same interbody procedures. Conclusions: Both cortical and pedicle trajectory screw fixation provided stability to the 1-level interbody constructs. Constructs with the least iatrogenic destabilization were most rigid. The more destabilized constructs showed less lateral bending and axial rotation rigidity with cortical screws compared with pedicle screws. Further investigation is warranted to understand the clinical implications of differences between constructs.

scholarly journals Cortical screws used to rescue failed lumbar pedicle screw construct: a biomechanical analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 166-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham C. Calvert ◽  
Brandon D. Lawrence ◽  
Amir M. Abtahi ◽  
Kent N. Bachus ◽  
Darrel S. Brodke
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
The Other ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Pullout Strength ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Cortical Screw ◽  
Flexion Extension

OBJECT Cortical trajectory screw constructs, developed as an alternative to pedicle screw fixation for the lumbar spine, have similar in vitro biomechanics. The possibility of one screw path having the ability to rescue the other in a revision scenario holds promise but has not been evaluated. The objective in this study was to investigate the biomechanical properties of traditional pedicle screws and cortical trajectory screws when each was used to rescue the other in the setting of revision. METHODS Ten fresh-frozen human lumbar spines were instrumented at L3–4, 5 with cortical trajectory screws and 5 with pedicle screws. Construct stiffness was recorded in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. The L-3 screw pullout strength was tested to failure for each specimen and salvaged with screws of the opposite trajectory. Mechanical stiffness was again recorded. The hybrid rescue trajectory screws at L-3 were then tested to failure. RESULTS Cortical screws, when used in a rescue construct, provided stiffness in flexion/extension and axial rotation similar to that provided by the initial pedicle screw construct prior to failure. The rescue pedicle screws provided stiffness similar to that provided by the primary cortical screw construct in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. In pullout testing, cortical rescue screws retained 60% of the original pedicle screw pullout strength, whereas pedicle rescue screws retained 65% of the original cortical screw pullout strength. CONCLUSIONS Cortical trajectory screws, previously studied as a primary mode of fixation, may also be used as a rescue option in the setting of a failed or compromised pedicle screw construct in the lumbar spine. Likewise, a standard pedicle screw construct may rescue a compromised cortical screw track. Cortical and pedicle screws each retain adequate construct stiffness and pullout strength when used for revision at the same level.

Adjacent-segment effects of lumbar cortical screw–rod fixation versus pedicle screw–rod fixation with and without interbody support

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Piyanat Wangsawatwong ◽  
Anna G. U. Sawa ◽  
Bernardo de Andrada Pereira ◽  
Jennifer N. Lehrman ◽  
Luke K. O’Neill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Single Level ◽  
Cortical Screw ◽  
Flexion Extension

OBJECTIVE Cortical screw–rod (CSR) fixation has emerged as an alternative to the traditional pedicle screw–rod (PSR) fixation for posterior lumbar fixation. Previous studies have concluded that CSR provides the same stability in cadaveric specimens as PSR and is comparable in clinical outcomes. However, recent clinical studies reported a lower incidence of radiographic and symptomatic adjacent-segment degeneration with CSR. No biomechanical study to date has focused on how the adjacent-segment mobility of these two constructs compares. This study aimed to investigate adjacent-segment mobility of CSR and PSR fixation, with and without interbody support (lateral lumbar interbody fusion [LLIF] or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [TLIF]). METHODS A retroactive analysis was done using normalized range of motion (ROM) data at levels adjacent to single-level (L3–4) bilateral screw–rod fixation using pedicle or cortical screws, with and without LLIF or TLIF. Intact and instrumented specimens (n = 28, all L2–5) were tested using pure moment loads (7.5 Nm) in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Adjacent-segment ROM data were normalized to intact ROM data. Statistical comparisons of adjacent-segment normalized ROM between two of the groups (PSR followed by PSR+TLIF [n = 7] and CSR followed by CSR+TLIF [n = 7]) were performed using 2-way ANOVA with replication. Statistical comparisons among four of the groups (PSR+TLIF [n = 7], PSR+LLIF [n = 7], CSR+TLIF [n = 7], and CSR+LLIF [n = 7]) were made using 2-way ANOVA without replication. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS Proximal adjacent-segment normalized ROM was significantly larger with PSR than CSR during flexion-extension regardless of TLIF (p = 0.02), or with either TLIF or LLIF (p = 0.04). During lateral bending with TLIF, the distal adjacent-segment normalized ROM was significantly larger with PSR than CSR (p < 0.001). Moreover, regardless of the types of screw-rod fixations (CSR or PSR), TLIF had a significantly larger normalized ROM than LLIF in all directions at both proximal and distal adjacent segments (p ≤ 0.04). CONCLUSIONS The use of PSR versus CSR during single-level lumbar fusion can significantly affect mobility at the adjacent segment, regardless of the presence of TLIF or with either TLIF or LLIF. Moreover, the type of interbody support also had a significant effect on adjacent-segment mobility.

Augmentation of an anterior lumbar interbody fusion with an anterior plate or pedicle screw fixation: a comparative biomechanical in vitro study

2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 267-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tann A. Nichols ◽  
Brenda K. Yantzer ◽  
Suzanne Alameda ◽  
Wesley M. Johnson ◽  
Bernard H. Guiot
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Anterior Plate ◽  
Elastic Zone ◽  
Flexion Extension

Object Posterior pedicle screw (PS) instrumentation is often used to augment anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) but at the cost of an increase in the morbidity rate due to the second approach and screw placement. If anterior plates were found to be biomechanically equivalent to PS fixation (PSF) after ALIF, then this second approach could be avoided without decreasing vertebral stability. Methods Eight cadaveric L5–S1 spinal segments were tested under four conditions: intact, following anterior discectomy and interbody spacer placement, after placement of an anterior plate, and following PSF. The elastic zone and stiffness were calculated for axial compression, flexion/extension, lateral bending, and torsion. Neither anterior plate stabilization nor PSF showed significant intergroup differences in stiffness or the elastic zone. Both exhibited greater stiffness in flexion than the intact specimens (p < 0.001). Pedicle screw fixation was associated with a decreased elastic zone in lateral bending compared with the intact specimen (p < 0.04). Conclusions Anterior plate fixation is biomechanically similar to PSF following ALIF. Surgeons may wish to use anterior plates in place of PSs to avoid the need for a posterior procedure. This may lead to a decrease in operative morbidity and improved overall outcomes.

Augmentation of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Anterior Pedicle Screw Fixation: Demonstration of Novel Constructs and Evaluation of Biomechanical Stability in Cadaveric Specimens

Neurosurgery ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 522-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aftab Karim ◽  
Debi Mukherjee ◽  
Murali Ankem ◽  
Jorge Gonzalez-Cruz ◽  
Donald Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Biomechanical Stability ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Computed Tomographic ◽  
Flexion Extension

Abstract OBJECTIVE: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has proven effective for indications including discogenic back pain, nonunion, and instability. Current practice involves posterior pedicle screw augmentation of the ALIF procedure (ALIF-PPS). This approach requires intraoperative repositioning of the patient for percutaneous posterior pedicle screw placement. We have developed a novel technique in which the ALIF procedure is augmented with anterior pedicle screws (APS; ALIF-APS). In this study, we introduce this new technique and compare the biomechanical stability of the novel ALIF-APS with the current standard ALIF-PPS. METHODS: The technique was demonstrated in a cadaveric L4–S1 specimen using neuronavigation and fluoroscopy. Plain radiographs and computed tomographic scans of the construct were obtained. Twelve cadaveric spines (7 men and 5 women) from donors with an average age of 81 years (range, 64–93 yr) were then harvested from L4–S1. Six specimens were dedicated to ALIF-APS constructs, and the remaining six were dedicated to ALIF-PPS constructs. The specimens were then studied at L5–S1 in the following steps: 1) intact form, 2) after anterior discectomy, 3) after implantation of titanium cages (ALIF), and 4) after APS or PPS fixation in conjunction with the ALIF. Measurements were obtained in axial rotation and left and right lateral bending flexion-extension. Data were normalized by calculating the ratio of the stiffness of the instrumented to the intact spine. Statistical analyses were then performed on the data. RESULTS: Radiographs and computed tomographic scans of the construct showed accurate placement of the APS at L5 and S1. The normalized data showed that ALIF-APS and ALIF-PPS had approximately equal stability in axial rotation (1.17 ± 0.43 versus 0.85 ± 0.14), lateral bending (0.93 ± 0.22 versus 0.95 ± 0.16), and flexion- extension (0.77 ± 0.13 versus 0.84 ± 0.2). Paired t test analysis did not show a significant difference between the biomechanical stiffness of ALIF-APS and ALIF-PPS in axial rotation, lateral bending, and flexion-extension. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate a new technique in a cadaveric specimen whereby the ALIF procedure is augmented with APS fixation using neuronavigation and fluoroscopy. Biomechanical evaluation of the constructs suggests that the ALIF-APS has comparable stability with ALIF-PPS. APS augmentation of ALIF has potential advantages over the current standard ALIF-PPS because it can 1) eliminate the patient repositioning step, 2) minimize the total number of incisions and the total operative time, and 3) protect against dislocation of the ALIF interbody graft or cage. Work is in progress to develop a low-profile system for the novel APS constructs described here.

Assessment of L5–S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion stability in the setting of lengthening posterior instrumentation constructs: a cadaveric biomechanical study

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Instrumentation ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Fusion Construct ◽  
Flexion Extension

OBJECTIVE Excessive stress and motion at the L5–S1 level can lead to degenerative changes, especially in patients with posterior instrumentation suprajacent to L5. Attention has turned to utilization of L5–S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) to stabilize the lumbosacral junction. However, questions remain regarding the effectiveness of stand-alone ALIF in the setting of prior posterior instrumented fusions terminating at L5. The purpose of this study was to assess the biomechanical stability of an L5–S1 ALIF with increasing lengths of posterior thoracolumbar constructs. METHODS Seven human cadaveric spines (T9–sacrum) were instrumented with pedicle screws from T10 to L5 and mounted to a 6 degrees-of-freedom robot. Posterior fusion construct lengths (T10–L5, T12–L5, L2–5, and L4–5) were instrumented to each specimen, and torque-fusion level relationships were determined for each construct in flexion-extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending. A stand-alone L5–S1 ALIF was then instrumented, and L5–S1 motion was measured as increasing pure moments (2 to 12 Nm) were applied. Motion reduction was calculated by comparing L5–S1 motion across the ALIF and non-ALIF states. RESULTS The average motion at L5–S1 in axial rotation, flexion-extension, and lateral bending was assessed for each fusion construct with and without ALIF. After adding ALIF to a posterior fusion, L5–S1 motion was significantly reduced relative to the non-ALIF state in all but one fused surgical condition (p < 0.05). Longer fusions with ALIF produced larger L5–S1 motions, and in some cases resulted in motions higher than native state motion. CONCLUSIONS Posterior fusion constructs up to L4–5 could be appropriately stabilized by a stand-alone L5–S1 ALIF when using a nominal threshold of 80% reduction in native motion as a potential positive indicator of fusion. The results of this study allow conclusions to be drawn from a biomechanical standpoint; however, the clinical implications of these data are not well defined. These findings, when taken in appropriate clinical context, can be used to better guide clinicians seeking to treat L5–S1 pathology in patients with prior posterior thoracolumbar constructs.

scholarly journals Biomechanical evaluation of lateral lumbar interbody fusion with secondary augmentation

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 720-726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco T. Reis ◽  
Phillip M. Reyes ◽  
Idris Altun ◽  
Anna G. U. S. Newcomb ◽  
Vaneet Singh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Supplemental Fixation ◽  
The Stability

OBJECTIVE Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has emerged as a popular method for lumbar fusion. In this study the authors aimed to quantify the biomechanical stability of an interbody implant inserted using the LLIF approach with and without various supplemental fixation methods, including an interspinous plate (IP). METHODS Seven human cadaveric L2–5 specimens were tested intact and in 6 instrumented conditions. The interbody implant was intended to be used with supplemental fixation. In this study, however, the interbody was also tested without supplemental fixation for a relative comparison of these conditions. The instrumented conditions were as follows: 1) interbody implant without supplemental fixation (LLIF construct); and interbody implant with supplemental fixation performed using 2) unilateral pedicle screws (UPS) and rod (LLIF + UPS construct); 3) bilateral pedicle screws (BPS) and rods (LLIF + BPS construct); 4) lateral screws and lateral plate (LP) (LLIF + LP construct); 5) interbody LP and IP (LLIF + LP + IP construct); and 6) IP (LLIF + IP construct). Nondestructive, nonconstraining torque (7.5 Nm maximum) induced flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, whereas 3D specimen range of motion (ROM) was determined optoelectronically. RESULTS The LLIF construct reduced ROM by 67% in flexion, 52% in extension, 51% in lateral bending, and 44% in axial rotation relative to intact specimens (p < 0.001). Adding BPS to the LLIF construct caused ROM to decrease by 91% in flexion, 82% in extension and lateral bending, and 74% in axial rotation compared with intact specimens (p < 0.001), providing the greatest stability among the constructs. Adding UPS to the LLIF construct imparted approximately one-half the stability provided by LLIF + BPS constructs, demonstrating significantly smaller ROM than the LLIF construct in all directions (flexion, p = 0.037; extension, p < 0.001; lateral bending, p = 0.012) except axial rotation (p = 0.07). Compared with the LLIF construct, the LLIF + LP had a significant reduction in lateral bending (p = 0.012), a moderate reduction in axial rotation (p = 0.18), and almost no benefit to stability in flexion-extension (p = 0.86). The LLIF + LP + IP construct provided stability comparable to that of the LLIF + BPS. The LLIF + IP construct provided a significant decrease in ROM compared with that of the LLIF construct alone in flexion and extension (p = 0.002), but not in lateral bending (p = 0.80) and axial rotation (p = 0.24). No significant difference was seen in flexion, extension, or axial rotation between LLIF + BPS and LLIF + IP constructs. CONCLUSIONS The LLIF construct that was tested significantly decreased ROM in all directions of loading, which indicated a measure of inherent stability. The LP significantly improved the stability of the LLIF construct in lateral bending only. Adding an IP device to the LLIF construct significantly improves stability in sagittal plane rotation. The LLIF + LP + IP construct demonstrated stability comparable to that of the gold standard 360° fixation (LLIF + BPS).

IN VITRO STUDY OF BIOMECHANICAL BEHAVIOROF ANTERIORAND TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBARINTERBODY INSTRUMENTATION TECHNIQUES

Neurosurgery ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 1271-1277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas K. Niemeyer ◽  
Marco Koriller ◽  
Lutz Claes ◽  
Annette Kettler ◽  
Kathrin Werner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Biomechanical Behavior ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Flexion Extension

Abstract OBJECTIVE To study the biomechanical behavior of lumbar interbody instrumentation techniques using titanium cages as either transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), with and without posterior pedicle fixation. METHODS Six fresh-frozen lumbar spines (L1–L5) were loaded with pure moments of ±7.5 Nm in unconstrained flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Specimen were tested intact, after implantation of an ALIF or TLIF cage “stand-alone” in L2–L3 or L3–L4, and after additional posterior pedicle screw fixation. RESULTS In all loading directions, the range of motion (ROM) of the segments instrumented with cage and pedicle screw fixation was below the ROM of the intact lumbar specimen for both instrumentation techniques. A significant difference was found between the TLIF cage and the ALIF cage with posterior pedicle screw fixation for the ROM in flexion-extension and axial rotation (P&lt; 0.05). Without pedicle screw fixation, the TLIF cage showed a significantly increased ROM and neutral zone compared with an ALIF cage “stand-alone” in two of the three loading directions (P&lt; 0.05). CONCLUSION With pedicle screw fixation, the ALIF cage provides a higher segmental stability than the TLIF cage in flexion-extension and axial rotation, but the absolute biomechanical differences are minor. The different cage design and approach show only minor differences of segmental stability when combined with posterior pedicle screw fixation.

scholarly journals Cadaveric biomechanical analysis of multilevel lateral lumbar interbody fusion with and without supplemental instrumentation

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Oujie Lai ◽  
Yunlin Chen ◽  
Qixin Chen ◽  
Yong Hu ◽  
Weihu Ma
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Plate ◽  
Similar Reduction ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Bilateral Pedicle Screw

Abstract Background This study was to evaluate and compare the biomechanical features of multilevel lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with or without supplemental instrumentations. Methods Six human lumbar specimens were tested under multidirectional nondestructive moments (7.5 N·m), with a 6 degree-of-freedom spine simulator. The overall and intervertebral range of motion (ROM) were measured optoelectronically. Each specimen was tested under the following conditions at L2–5 levels: intact; stand-alone; cage supplemented with lateral plate (LP); cage supplemented with unilateral or bilateral pedicle screw/rod (UPS or BPS). Results Compared with intact condition, the overall and intersegmental ROM were significantly reduced after multilevel stand-alone LLIF. The ROM was further reduced after using LP instrumentation. In flexion-extension (FE) and axial rotation (AR), pedicle screw/rod demonstrated greater overall ROM reduction compared to LP (P < 0.01), and bilateral greater than unilateral (P < 0.01). In lateral bending (LB), BPS demonstrated greater overall ROM reduction compared to UPS and LP (P < 0.01), however, UPS and LP showed similar reduction (P = 0.245). Intervertebral ROM reductions showed similar trend as the overall ones after using different types of instrumentation. However, at L2/3 (P = 0.57) and L3/4 (P = 0.097) levels, the intervertebral ROM reductions in AR were similar between UPS and LP. Conclusions The overall and intervertebral stability increased significantly after multilevel LLIF with or without supplemental instrumentation. BPS provided the greatest stability, followed by UPS and LP. However, in clinical practice, less invasive adjunctive fixation methods including UPS and LP may provide sufficient biomechanical stability for multilevel LLIF.

Biomechanics of a lumbar interspinous anchor with anterior lumbar interbody fusion

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 372-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dean G. Karahalios ◽  
Taro Kaibara ◽  
Randall W. Porter ◽  
Udaya K. Kakarla ◽  
Phillip M. Reyes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Plate Fixation ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Anterior Plate ◽  
Foraminal Height ◽  
Flexion And Extension

Object An interspinous anchor (ISA) provides fixation to the lumbar spine to facilitate fusion. The biomechanical stability provided by the Aspen ISA was studied in applications utilizing an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) construct. Methods Seven human cadaveric L3–S1 specimens were tested in the following states: 1) intact; 2) after placing an ISA at L4–5; 3) after ALIF with an ISA; 4) after ALIF with an ISA and anterior screw/plate fixation system; 5) after removing the ISA (ALIF with plate only); 6) after removing the plate (ALIF only); and 7) after applying bilateral pedicle screws and rods. Pure moments (7.5 Nm maximum) were applied in flexion and extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation while recording angular motion optoelectronically. Changes in angulation as well as foraminal height were also measured. Results All instrumentation variances except ALIF alone reduced angular range of motion (ROM) significantly from normal in all directions of loading. The ISA was most effective in limiting flexion and extension (25% of normal) and less effective in reducing lateral bending (71% of normal) and axial rotation (71% of normal). Overall, ALIF with an ISA provided stability that was statistically equivalent to ALIF with bilateral pedicle screws and rods. An ISA-augmented ALIF allowed less ROM than plate-augmented ALIF during flexion, extension, and lateral bending. Use of the ISA resulted in flexion at the index level, with a resultant increase in foraminal height. Compensatory extension at the adjacent levels prevented any significant change in overall sagittal balance. Conclusions When used with ALIF at L4–5, the ISA provides immediate rigid immobilization of the lumbar spine, allowing equivalent ROM to that of a pedicle screw/rod system, and smaller ROM than an anterior plate. When used with ALIF, the ISA may offer an alternative to anterior plate fixation or bilateral pedicle screw/rod constructs.

Stabilizing effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages before and after cyclic loading

2000 ◽  
Vol 92 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Kettler ◽  
Hans-Joachim Wilke ◽  
Rupert Dietl ◽  
Matthias Krammer ◽  
Christianto Lumenta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cyclic Loading ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Stabilizing Effect ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The function of interbody fusion cages is to stabilize spinal segments primarily by distracting them as well as by allowing bone ingrowth and fusion. An important condition for efficient formation of bone tissue is achieving adequate spinal stability. However, the initial stability may be reduced due to repeated movements of the spine during everyday activity. Therefore, in addition to immediate stability, stability after cyclic loading is of remarkable relevance; however, this has not yet been investigated. The object of this study was to investigate the immediate stabilizing effect of three different posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages and to clarify the effect of cyclic loading on the stabilization. Methods. Before and directly after implantation of a Zientek, Stryker, or Ray posterior lumbar interbody fusion cage, 24 lumbar spine segment specimens were each evaluated in a spine tester. Pure lateral bending, flexion—extension, and axial rotation moments (± 7.5 Nm) were applied continuously. The motion in each specimen was measured simultaneously. The specimens were then loaded cyclically (40,000 cycles, 5 Hz) with an axial compression force ranging from 200 to 1000 N. Finally, they were tested once again in the spine tester. Conclusions. In general, a decrease of movement in all loading directions was noted after insertion of the Zientek and Ray cages and an increase of movement after implantation of a Stryker cage. In all three cage groups greater stability was demonstrated in lateral bending and flexion than in extension and axial rotation. Reduced stability during cyclic loading was observed in all three cage groups; however, loss of stability was most pronounced when the Ray cage was used.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document