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< 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< 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.

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.

scholarly journals An In Vitro Biomechanical Evaluation of a Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Device With Integrated Lateral Modular Plate Fixation

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822090561
Author(s):  
Ryan DenHaese ◽  
Anup Gandhi ◽  
Chris Ferry ◽  
Sam Farmer ◽  
Randall Porter
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Plate Fixation ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Biomechanical Study ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Bilateral Pedicle Screw

Study Design: In vitro cadaveric biomechanical study. Objective: Biomechanically characterize a novel lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) implant possessing integrated lateral modular plate fixation (MPF). Methods: A human lumbar cadaveric (n = 7, L1-L4) biomechanical study of segmental range-of-motion stiffness was performed. A ±7.5 Nċm moment was applied in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation using a 6 degree-of-freedom kinematics system. Specimens were tested first in an intact state and then following iterative instrumentation (L2/3): (1) LLIF cage only, (2) LLIF + 2-screw MPF, (3) LLIF + 4-screw MPF, (4) LLIF + 4-screw MPF + interspinous process fixation, and (5) LLIF + bilateral pedicle screw fixation. Comparative analysis of range-of-motion outcomes was performed between iterations. Results: Key biomechanical findings: (1) Flexion/extension range-of-motion reduction with LLIF + 4-screw MPF was significantly greater than LLIF + 2-screw MPF ( P < .01). (2) LLIF with 2-screw and 4-screw MPF were comparable to LLIF with bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lateral bending and axial rotation range-of-motion reduction ( P = 1.0). (3) LLIF + 4-screw MPF and supplemental interspinous process fixation range-of-motion reduction was comparable to LLIF + bilateral pedicle screw fixation in all directions ( P ≥ .6). Conclusions: LLIF with 4-screw MPF may provide inherent advantages over traditional 2-screw plating modalities. Furthermore, when coupled with interspinous process fixation, LLIF with MPF is a stable circumferential construct that provides biomechanical utility in all principal motions.

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document