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.

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

1999 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. E7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Kettler ◽  
Hans-Joachim Wilke ◽  
Rupert Dietl ◽  
Matthias Krammer ◽  
Christianto Lumenta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cyclic Loading ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Bone Ingrowth ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Everyday Activity ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Stabilizing Effect

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. 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. 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.

Complications of posterior lumbar interbody fusion when using a titanium threaded cage device

2000 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Jeffrey Elias ◽  
Nathan E. Simmons ◽  
George J. Kaptain ◽  
James B. Chadduck ◽  
Richard Whitehill
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Motor Deficit ◽  
Spinal Instability ◽  
Graft Material ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The authors reviewed their series of patients to quantify clinical and radiographic complications in those who underwent a posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) procedure in which a threaded interbody cage (TIC) was implanted. Methods. Sixty-seven patients underwent a posterior lumbar interbody fusion procedure in which a TIC was used. The authors excluded patients who underwent procedures in which other instrumentation was used or a nondorsal approach was performed. Fifteen percent of the cases (10 patients) were complicated by laceration of the dura. In three cases, bilateral implantation could not be performed. The average blood loss was 670 ml for all cases, and blood transfusion was required in 25% of the cases (17 patients). The rate of minor wound complication was 4.5% (three patients). One patient died. The average period of hospitalization was 4.25 days. Twenty-eight patients (42%) experienced significant low-back pain 3 months postoperatively, and in 10 (15%) of these cases it persisted beyond 1 year. In 10 patients postoperative radiculopathy was demonstrated, and magnetic resonance imaging revealed epidural fibrosis in six patients, arachnoiditis in one, and a recurrent disc herniation in one. One patient incurred a permanent motor deficit with sexual dysfunction. Pseudarthrosis was suggested radiographically with evidence of motion on lateral flexion—extension radiographs (10 cases), lucencies around the implants (seven cases), and posterior migration of the cage (two cases). Additional procedures (in 14 patients) consisted primarily of transverse process fusion with pedicle screw and plate augmentation for persistent back pain and radiographically demonstrated signs of spinal instability. In two patients with radiculopathy, migration of the TIC required that it be removed. Graft material that extruded from one implant necessitated its removal. In one patient scarectomy was performed. Conclusions. Our high incidence of TIC-related complications in PLIF is inconsistent with that reported in previous studies.

scholarly journals In vitro biomechanical effects of reconstruction on adjacent motion segment: comparison of aligned/kyphotic posterolateral fusion with aligned posterior lumbar interbody fusion/posterolateral fusion

2003 ◽  
Vol 99 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hideki Sudo ◽  
Itaru Oda ◽  
Kuniyoshi Abumi ◽  
Manabu Ito ◽  
Yoshihisa Kotani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterolateral Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Motion Segment ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Fine Print

Object. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) was developed to overcome the limitations of posterolateral fusion in correcting spinal deformity and maintaining lumbar lordosis. In this study the authors compare the biomechanical effects of three different posterior reconstructions on the adjacent motion segment. Methods. Ten calf spinal (L2—S1) specimens underwent nondestructive flexion—extension testing (± 6 Nm). The specimens were destabilized at the L5—S1 levels after intact testing. This was followed by pedicle screw fixation with and without interbody cages as follows: 1) with straight rods (“aligned” posterolateral fusion); 2) with kyphotically prebent rods (“kyphotic” posterolateral fusion); and 3) with interbody cages combined with straight rods (“aligned” PLIF/posterolateral fusion). The range of motion (ROM) of the operative segments, the intradiscal pressure (IDP), and longitudinal lamina strain in the superior adjacent segment (L4–5) were analyzed. The ROM associated with aligned PLIF/posterolateral fusion-treated specimens was significantly less than both the aligned and kyphotic posterolateral fusion-treated procedures in both flexion and extension loading (p < 0.05). The aligned PLIF/posterolateral fusion was associated with greater IDP and the lamina strain compared with the aligned and kyphotic posterolateral fusion groups in flexion loading. Under extension loading, greater IDP and lamina strain were present in the kyphotic posterolateral fusion group than in the aligned posterolateral fusion group. The highest IDP and lamina strain were shown in the aligned PLIF/posterolateral fusion group. Conclusions. Compared with kyphotic posterolateral fusion, PLIF may lead to even higher load at the superior adjacent level because of the increased stiffness of the fixed segments even if local kyphosis is corrected by PLIF.

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages: an independent review of 71 cases

1999 ◽  
Vol 91 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siviero Agazzi ◽  
Alain Reverdin ◽  
Daniel May
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Fixation Techniques ◽  
Independent Review ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The authors conducted a retrospective study to provide an independent evaluation of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in which impacted carbon cages were used. Interbody cages have been developed to replace tricortical interbody grafts in anterior and PLIF procedures. Superior fusion rates and clinical outcomes have been claimed by the developers. Methods. In a retrospective study, the authors evaluated 71 consecutive patients in whom surgery was performed between 1995 and 1997. The median follow-up period was 28 months. Clinical outcome was assessed using the Prolo scale. Fusion results were interpreted by an independent radiologist. The fusion rate was 90%. Overall, 67% of the patients were satisfied with their outcome and would undergo the same operation again. Based on the results of the Prolo scale, however, in only 39% of the patients were excellent or good results achieved. Forty-six percent of the work-eligible patients resumed their working activity. Clinical outcome and return-to-work status were significantly associated with socioeconomic factors such as preoperative employment (p = 0.03), compensation issues (p = 0.001), and length of preoperative sick leave (p = 0.01). Radiographically demonstrated fusion was not statistically related to clinical outcome (p = 0.2). Conclusions. This is one of the largest independent series in which PLIF with cages has been evaluated. The results show that the procedure is safe and effective with a 90% fusion rate and a 66% overall satisfaction rate, which compare favorably with those of traditional fixation techniques but fail to match the higher results claimed by the innovators of the cage techniques. The authors' experience confirms the reports of others that many patients continue to experience incapacitating back pain despite successful fusion and neurological recovery.

Stability of the craniovertebral junction after unilateral occipital condyle resection: a biomechanical study

1999 ◽  
Vol 90 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Giancarlo Vishteh ◽  
Neil R. Crawford ◽  
M. Stephen Melton ◽  
Robert F. Spetzler ◽  
Volker K. H. Sonntag ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Craniovertebral Junction ◽  
Biomechanical Study ◽  
Occipital Condyle ◽  
Upper Cervical Spine ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Axial Translation ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The authors sought to determine the biomechanics of the occipitoatlantal (occiput [Oc]—C1) and atlantoaxial (C1–2) motion segments after unilateral gradient condylectomy. Methods. Six human cadaveric specimens (skull with attached upper cervical spine) underwent nondestructive biomechanical testing (physiological loads) during flexion—extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Axial translation from tension to compression was also studied across Oc—C2. Each specimen served as its own control and underwent baseline testing in the intact state. The specimens were then tested after progressive unilateral condylectomy (25% resection until completion), which was performed using frameless stereotactic guidance. At Oc—C1 for all motions that were tested, mobility increased significantly compared to baseline after a 50% condylectomy. Flexion—extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation increased 15.3%, 40.8%, and 28.1%, respectively. At C1–2, hypermobility during flexion—extension occurred after a 25% condylectomy, during axial rotation after 75% condylectomy, and during lateral bending after a 100% condylectomy. Conclusions. Resection of 50% or more of the occipital condyle produces statistically significant hypermobility at Oc—C1. After a 75% resection, the biomechanics of the Oc—C1 and C1–2 motion segments change considerably. Performing fusion of the craniovertebral junction should therefore be considered if half or more of one occipital condyle is resected.

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.

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.

Biomechanical comparison: stability of lateral-approach anterior lumbar interbody fusion and lateral fixation compared with anterior-approach anterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior fixation in the lower lumbar spine

2005 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sung-Min Kim ◽  
T. Jesse Lim ◽  
Josemaria Paterno ◽  
Jon Park ◽  
Daniel H. Kim
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Transpedicular Fixation ◽  
Lower Lumbar Spine ◽  
Lateral Fixation ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The stability of lateral lumbar interbody graft—augmented fusion and supplementary lateral plate fixation in human cadavers has not been determined. The purpose of this study was to investigate the immediate biomechanical stabilities of the following: 1) femoral ring allograft (FRA)—augmented anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) after left lateral discectomy combined with additional lateral MACS HMA plate and screw fixation; and 2) ALIF combined with posterior transpedicular fixation after anterior discectomy. Methods. Sixteen human lumbosacral spines were loaded with six modes of motion. The intervertebral motion was measured using a video-based motion-capturing system. The range of motion (ROM) and the neutral zone (NZ) in each loading mode were compared with a maximum of 7.5 Nm. The ROM values for both stand-alone ALIF approaches were similar to those of the intact spine, whereas NZ measurements were higher in most loading modes. No significant intergroup differences were found. The ROM and NZ values for lateral fixation in all modes were significantly lower than those of intact spine, except when NZ was measured in lateral bending. All ROM and NZ values for transpedicular fixation were significantly lower than those for stand-alone anterior ALIF. Transpedicular fixation conferred better stabilization than lateral fixation in flexion, extension, and lateral bending modes. Conclusions. Neither approach to stand-alone FRA-augmented ALIF provided sufficient stabilization, but supplementary instrumentation conferred significant stabilization. The MACS HMA plate and screw fixation system, although inferior to posterior transpedicular fixation, provided adequate stability compared with the intact spine and can serve as a sound alternative to supplementary spinal stabilization.

Biomechanical studies of an artificial disc implant in the human cadaveric spine

2005 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 339-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick W. Hitchon ◽  
Kurt Eichholz ◽  
Christopher Barry ◽  
Paige Rubenbauer ◽  
Aditya Ingalhalikar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biomechanical Testing ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Load Testing ◽  
Artificial Disc ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Intact State ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The authors compared the biomechanical performance of the human cadaveric spine implanted with a metallic ball-and-cup artificial disc at L4–5 with the spine's intact state and after anterior discectomy. Methods. Seven human L2—S1 cadaveric spines were mounted on a biomechanical testing frame. Pure moments of 0, 1.5, 3.0, 4.5, and 6.0 Nm were applied to the spine at L-2 in six degrees of motion (flexion, extension, right and left lateral bending, and right and left axial rotation). The spines were tested in the intact state as well as after anterior L4–5 discectomy. The Maverick disc was implanted in the discectomy defect, and load testing was repeated. The artificial disc created greater rigidity for the spine than was present after discectomy, and the spine performed biomechanically in a manner comparable with the intact state. Conclusions. The results indicate that in an in vitro setting, this model of artificial disc stabilizes the spine after discectomy, restoring motion comparable with that of the intact state.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document