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.

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.

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.

scholarly journals In Vitro Study of Biomechanical Analysis of Modified Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion—crenel Lumbar Interbody Fusion

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yun-lin Chen ◽  
Ou-jie Lai ◽  
Wei-hu Ma ◽  
Yu-li Ma ◽  
Jia-ni Pang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Plate ◽  
Intact Group ◽  
Plate Group ◽  
Screw Group

Abstract Background To analyze the biomechanical stability of the modified LLIF, crenel lateral interbody fusion (CLIF), and compare various methods of instrumentation of CLIF in vitro.Methods Three fresh-frozen cadaveric lumbar spines (L1-S1) were used in our study. The modified CLIF interbody cage was inserted into the L3/4 level in each specimen. Every specimen was tested under 5 conditions: intact group; stand-alone CLIF group; CLIF with lateral plate group (CLIF + LP); CLIF with lateral plate and unilateral pedicle screw group (CLIF + LP + UPS); CLIF with bilateral pedicle screw group (CLIF + BPS).Results The ROM of each CLIF group was significantly reduced when compared with intact group in all directions of loading (p< 0.05). The CLIF + LP + BPS group was the most stable in all directions of loading. CLIF + LP group has less ROM when compared with stand-alone group except for the extension condition. CLIF + BPS group has less ROM than CLIF + LP group in every condition. Conclusions CLIF combine with lateral plate and bilateral pedicel screw is the most stable supplemental fixation, and lateral plate could reduce the ROM under rotation and lateral bending conditions. For patients with good bone quality, stand-alone with or without is a alternative method to achieve a good clinical result.

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document