Biomechanical Comparison of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With 1 or 2 Cages by Finite-Element Analysis

2013 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. ons198-ons205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Xu ◽  
Wen Ju ◽  
Neng Xu ◽  
Xiaojian Zhang ◽  
Xiaodong Zhu ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion with 1 cage have been shown to have similar biomechanics compared with the use of 2 cages. However, there have been no reports on the biomechanical differences between using 1 or 2 cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery. OBJECTIVE: To determine the biomechanical differences between the use of 1 or 2 cages in TLIF by finite-element analysis. METHODS: Three validated finite-element models of the L3-L5 lumbar segment were created (intact model and single- and paired-cage TLIF models). To study the biomechanics, a compressive preload of 400 N over 7.5 N-m was applied to the superior surfaces of the L3 vertebral body to simulate flexion, extension, rotation, and lateral bending. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the range of motion between single-cage and paired-cage TLIF models, < 1° for all loading cases. Cage stress was high in the single-cage TLIF model under all loading conditions. Bone graft stress was high in the single-cage TLIF model. Pedicle screw stress was higher in the single-cage compared with the paired-cage TLIF. CONCLUSION: Single-cage TLIF approximates biomechanical stability and increases the stress of the bone graft. The use of a single cage may simplify the standard TLIF procedure, shorten operative times, decrease cost, and provide satisfactory clinical outcomes. Thus, single-cage TLIF is a useful alternative to traditional 2-cage TLIF.

2012 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. ons21-ons26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Xu ◽  
Hao Tang ◽  
Xuemei Guan ◽  
Fugui Jiang ◽  
Neng Xu ◽  
...  

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.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Li ◽  
Shuai Cao ◽  
Jie Wang ◽  
Gaoyang Zong ◽  
Hao Qiao ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Currently, the comprehensive biomechanical evaluation of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rods in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is limited. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical differences between titanium alloy (Ti) rods and PEEK rods in TLIF. Methods: L3-5 lumbar models were developed using the finite element method. Four surgical models of TLIF were constructed by simulating different fusion methods and rods: cage fusion with Ti rods, cage fusion with PEEK rods, bone graft alone with Ti rods, and bone graft alone with PEEK rods. The range of motion (ROM) and stress distribution of the surgical and adjacent segments were then compared. Results: Compared to the Ti rods, the PEEK rods increased the ROM by 0.7–20% at the L4/5 segment and decreased the ROM by 0.8–15.1% at the L3/4 segment. The disc stresses at the L3/4 level were similar among the surgical models (0.79–1.80 MPa). The peak stresses of the screws, rods, and bone-screw interfaces in the PEEK rod models were 0–1.2 times, 1.6–4.4 times, and 0–1.4 times lower than those of the Ti rod models, respectively. PEEK rods increased the average strain of the bone graft by 0.5–61.6% and the stresses of the cage by 0.9–44.1% and endplates by 2.1–52.9%. Conclusion: In TLIF, PEEK rods played a positive role in restoring the ROM. They also increased the strain of the bone graft, stresses of the endplates and cages, and the risk of rod fracture and reduced the stress of the screw-rod system. Bone grafts alone combined with PEEK rods had acceptable biomechanical behavior in TLIF.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document