scholarly journals Finite analysis of stability between modified articular fusion technique, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posteriorlateral lumbar fusion

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao Han ◽  
Xin Chen ◽  
Kuan Li ◽  
Zheng Li ◽  
Shugang Li
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Image Data ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Motion Range ◽  
Analysis Of Stability ◽  
The Stability

Abstract Background It is not clear whether modified facet fusion (MFF) is biomechanically different from traditional fusion techniques such as posterior lateral lumbar fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Methods In this study, a healthy adult Chinese male volunteer was selected to perform 3D reconstruction of CT image data and simulate the successful fusion of L4–5 MFF, PLF and PLIF, respectively. The motion range of L4–5 segments of the model was simulated under 6 working conditions, including forward flexion, extension, lateral flexion and rotation under normal physiological conditions, and the stability of the three fusion procedures in the pathological segments of the lumbar spine was compared. Results There was no difference in range of motion between MFF model and PLF or PLIF model (P < 0.05). Also, the stiffness of the PLFand the MFF model were comparable (P > 0.05), but were smaller than the PLIF model (P < 0.05). Conclusions MFF provides reliable stability at the lumbar fixation fusion level and does not differ significantly from PLF and PLIF in terms of range of motion.

Biomechanical Comparison of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion by Finite Element Analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. ons21-ons26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Xu ◽  
Hao Tang ◽  
Xuemei Guan ◽  
Fugui Jiang ◽  
Neng Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element Analysis ◽  
Finite Element ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Element Analysis ◽  
Flexion Extension

Abstract Background: The transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure may reduce many of the risks and limitations associated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). However, little is known about the biomechanical difference between PLIF and TLIF. Objective: To determine the biomechanical difference between PLIF and TLIF by finite-element analysis. Methods: Three validated finite-element models of L3-5 lumbar segment were created (intact model, PLIF model, and TLIF model). To analyze the biomechanics of these models, flexion, extension, rotation, and lateral bending moments of 7.5 N-m with a compressive preload of 400 N were imposed on the superior surfaces of the L3 vertebral body. Results: The range of motion at the L4-5 level of the PLIF and TLIF models decreased for all loading cases, compared with the intact model. Differences in the range of motion between PLIF and TLIF were not significant at less than 1 degree for all loading cases. The stress of the cage was found to be high in the PLIF model at the cageendplate interface under all loading conditions. The stress exerted on the pedicle screw was greater in TLIF than PLIF. Particularly in flexion loading, the stress experienced by the pedicle screw in the TLIF model was 70.7% greater than that in the PLIF model. Conclusion: The TLIF procedure increases the approximate biomechanical stability and reduces stress at the cage-endplate interface, except for a slight increase in screw stress. Clinically, the TLIF procedure may reduce many of the risks and limitations associated with PLIF and offer a useful alternative to the PLIF procedure.

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.

scholarly journals A comparative study of functional outcome between posterior lumbar fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in spondylolisthesis

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 544
Author(s):  
Harpreet Singh ◽  
Dhruv Patel ◽  
Sangam Tyagi ◽  
Krushna Saoji ◽  
Tilak Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Functional Outcome ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Invasive Technique ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Tertiary Care Centre ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Fusion

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Spondylolisthesis is condition in which one vertebra slips over other vertebra. This study has been done to compare the functional outcome and complications of two techniques: posterior lumbar fusion (intertransverse fusion) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> Total 20 patients with spondylolisthesis admitted in a tertiary care centre in Rajasthan were allotted alternatively in posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) group and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) group. In PLF, fusion was done by placing bone graft between transverse processes and around facets. In PLIF, fusion was bone by placing cage in between vertebral bodies.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> 20 patients were included in our study with female predominance (65%). Mean age was 54.2 years (PLF=58.4 and PLIF=50.2). 70% patients have L4-L5 level spondylolisthesis. Average operative time was less in PLF group, which is statistically significant. Functional outcome was measured by using visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Japanese orthopedics association score (JOAS) at 3 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. There is a significant decrease between preoperative VAS and at 6 months, in both PLF and PLIF group. JOAS was significantly increased at 6 months in both PLF and PLIF group as compared to preoperative score. But difference in JOAS at 6 months is not significant between PLF and PLIF.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Both PLF and PLIF are equally effective for spondylolisthesis. Both techniques have same satisfactory results. As PLIF is more invasive technique, more operative time and more complications are seen.</p>

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.

Vertebral osteolytic defect due to cellulose particles derived from gauze fibers after posterior lumbar interbody fusion

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 877-881 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shota Takenaka ◽  
Yoshihiro Mukai ◽  
Noboru Hosono ◽  
Kosuke Tateishi ◽  
Takeshi Fuji
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Histopathological Examination ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Body Type ◽  
Initial Surgery

Vertebral cystic lesions may be observed in pseudarthroses after lumbar fusion surgery. The authors report a rare case of pseudarthrosis after spinal fusion, accompanied by an expanding vertebral osteolytic defect induced by cellulose particles. A male patient originally presented at the age of 69 years with leg and low-back pain caused by a lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis. He underwent a posterior lumbar interbody fusion, and his neurological symptoms and pain resolved within a year but recurred 14 months after surgery. Radiological imaging demonstrated a cystic lesion on the inferior endplate of L-5 and the superior endplate of S-1, which rapidly enlarged into a vertebral osteolytic defect. The patient underwent revision surgery, and his low-back pain resolved. A histopathological examination demonstrated foreign body–type multinucleated giant cells, containing 10-μm particles, in the sample collected just below the defect. Micro–Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy revealed that the foreign particles were cellulosic, presumably originating from cotton gauze fibers that had contaminated the interbody cages used during the initial surgery. Vertebral osteolytic defects that occur after interbody fusion are generally presumed to be the result of infection. This case suggests that some instances of vertebral osteolytic defects may be aseptically induced by foreign particles. Hence, this possibility should be carefully considered in such cases, to help prevent contamination of the morselized bone used for autologous grafts by foreign materials, such as gauze fibers.

A Compaction Bone Grafting Technique Leads to Early Bone Fusion in Cases of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-38
Author(s):  
Mikinobu Takeuchi ◽  
Norimitsu Wakao ◽  
Mitsuhiro Kamiya ◽  
Atsuhiko Hirasawa ◽  
Shuntaro Hanamura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Grafting ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Psoas Muscle ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Impaction Bone Grafting ◽  
Computed Tomographic ◽  
Bone Fusion ◽  
Grafting Technique

Abstract BACKGROUND The impaction bone grafting technique is a popular approach for achieving complete bone fusion during hip surgery or total knee arthroplasty. We hypothesized that compaction bone grafting (CBG), a modified version of impaction bone grafting, could be applied to lumbar fusion surgery. OBJECTIVE To compare the bone fusion rates and durations achieved using the CBG technique and a conventional loose bone grafting technique. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed 89 patients who underwent single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion at the university hospital; 35 other posterior lumbar interbody fusion recipients were excluded due to undergoing multilevel fusion, prior lumbar surgery, trauma, infection, or inadequate computed tomographic data. Computed tomographic-based bone fusion assessments were obtained using the Brantigan, Steffee, and Fraser criteria at 1 and 2 years after surgery. RESULTS The baseline characteristics of the CBG (n = 42) and loose bone grafting (n = 47) groups did not significantly differ. Fusion assessments indicated that significantly superior bone fusion rates were achieved at 1 year after surgery in the CBG group than in the loose bone grafting group (P = .04, χ2 test). However, the bone fusion rates of the 2 groups at 2 years after surgery did not significantly differ (P = .3). A nonsymptomatic surgical complication occurred in the CBG group when a spacer was inserted into the intervertebral space; specifically, the spacer slipped out of the right psoas muscle because a large quantity of compaction bone grafts disrupted the cage's pathway. CONCLUSION In posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgeries, bone fusion was achieved more quickly with the CBG technique than with the conventional technique.

Pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis: does posterior lumbar interbody fusion improve outcome over posterolateral fusion?

2003 ◽  
Vol 99 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni La Rosa ◽  
Alfredo Conti ◽  
Fabio Cacciola ◽  
Salvatore Cardali ◽  
Domenico La Torre ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Posterolateral Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Isthmic Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Fine Print

Object. Posterolateral fusion involving instrumentation-assisted segmental fixation represents a valid procedure in the treatment of lumbar instability. In cases of anterior column failure, such as in isthmic spondylolisthesis, supplemental posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) may improve the fusion rate and endurance of the construct. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion is, however, a more demanding procedure and increases costs and risks of the intervention. The advantages of this technique must, therefore, be weighed against those of a simple posterior lumbar fusion. Methods. Thirty-five consecutive patients underwent pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis. In 18 patients posterior lumbar fusion was performed, and in 17 patients PLIF was added. Clinical, economic, functional, and radiographic data were assessed to determine differences in clinical and functional results and biomechanical properties. At 2-year follow-up examination, the correction of subluxation, disc height, and foraminal area were maintained in the group in which a PLIF procedure was performed, but not in the posterolateral fusion—only group (p < 0.05). Nevertheless, no statistical intergroup differences were demonstrated in terms of neurological improvement (p = 1), economic (p = 0.43), or functional (p = 0.95) outcome, nor in terms of fusion rate (p = 0.49). Conclusions. The authors' findings support the view that an interbody fusion confers superior mechanical strength to the spinal construct; when posterolateral fusion is the sole intervention, progressive loss of the extreme correction can be expected. Such mechanical insufficiency, however, did not influence clinical outcome.

scholarly journals Review of Risks and Complications of Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF)

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy E. Epstein
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Plexus ◽  
Abdominal Muscles ◽  
Vascular Injuries ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Interbody

Background: Extreme lateral interbody fusions (XLIF) and Minimally Invasive (MIS) XLIF were developed to limit the vascular injuries associated with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and minimize the muscular/ soft tissue trauma attributed to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). Methods: Nevertheless, XLIF/MIS XLIF pose significant additional risks and complications that include; multiple nerve injuries (e.g. lumbar plexus, ilioinguinal, iliohypogastric, genitofemoral, lateral femoral cutaneous, and subcostals (to the anterior abdominal muscles: abdominal oblique), and sympathectomy), major vascular injuries, bowel perforations/postoperative ileus, seromas, pseudarthrosis, subsidence, and reoperations. Results: The risks of neural injury with XLIF/MIS XLIF (up to 30-40%) are substantially higher than for TLIF, PLIF, PLF, and ALIF. These neural injuries included: lumbar plexus injuries (13.28%); new sensory deficits (0-75% (21.7%-40%); permanent 62.5%); motor deficits (0.7-33.6%-40%); iliopsoas weakness (9%-31%: permanent 5%), anterior thigh/groin pain (12.5-34%), and sympathectomy (4%-12%). Additional non-neurological complications included; subsidence (10.3%-13.8%), major vascular injuries (0.4%), bowel perforations, recurrent seroma, malpositioning of the XLIF cages, a 45% risk of cage-overhang, pseudarthrosis (7.5%), and failure to adequately decompress stenosis. In one study, reviewing 20 publications and involving 1080 XLIF patients, the authors observed “Most (XLIF) studies are limited by study design, sample size, and potential conflicts of interest.” Conclusion: Many new neurological deficits and other adverse events/complications are attributed to MIS XLIF/ XLIF. Shouldn’t these significant risk factors be carefully taken into consideration before choosing to perform MIS XLIF/XLIF?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document