Impact of cage position on biomechanical performance of stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis

被引:9
|
作者
Nan, Chong [1 ]
Ma, Zhanbei [2 ]
Liu, Yuxiu [2 ]
Ma, Liang [2 ]
Li, Jiaqi [1 ]
Zhang, Wei [1 ]
机构
[1] Hebei Med Univ, Dept Spinal Surg, Hosp 3, Shijiazhuang 050000, Hebei, Peoples R China
[2] Cent Hosp, Dept Orthoped, Baoding 1, Baoding 071000, Hebei, Peoples R China
关键词
Stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion; Cage position; Finite element analysis; Adjacent segment degeneration; Cage subsidence; PEDICLE-SCREW FIXATION; ADJACENT; DISEASE; SPINE; DECOMPRESSION; DEGENERATION;
D O I
10.1186/s12891-022-05873-x
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background This study aimed to compare the biomechanical performance of various cage positions in stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion(SA LLIF). Methods An intact finite element model of the L3-L5 was reconstructed. The model was verified and analyzed. Through changing the position of the cage, SA LLIF was established in four directions: anterior placement(AP), middle placement(MP), posterior placement(PP), oblique placement(OP). A 400 N vertical axial pre-load was imposed on the superior surface of L3 and a 10 N/m moment was applied on the L3 superior surface along the radial direction to simulate movements of flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Various biomechanical parameters were evaluated for intact and implanted models in all loading conditions, including the range of motion (ROM) and maximum stress. Results In the SA LLIF models, the ROM of L4-5 was reduced by 84.21-89.03% in flexion, 72.64-82.26% in extension, 92.5-95.85% in right and left lateral bending, and 87.22-92.77% in right and left axial rotation, respectively. Meanwhile, ROM of L3-4 was mildly increased by an average of 9.6% in all motion directions. Almost all stress peaks were increased after SA LLIF, including adjacent disc, facet joints, and endplates. MP had lower stress peaks of cage and endplates in most motion modes. In terms of the stress on facet joints and disc of the cephalad segment, MP had the smallest increment. Conclusion In our study, SA LLIF risked accelerating the adjacent segment degeneration. The cage position had an influence on the distribution of endplate stress and the magnitude of facet joint stress. Compared with other positions, MP had the slightest effect on the stress in the adjacent facet joints. Meanwhile, MP seems to play an important role in reducing the risk of cage subsidence.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Impact of cage position on biomechanical performance of stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis
    Chong Nan
    Zhanbei Ma
    Yuxiu Liu
    Liang Ma
    Jiaqi Li
    Wei Zhang
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 23
  • [2] Biomechanical comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion: stand-alone interbody cage versus interbody cage with pedicle screw fixation - a finite element analysis
    Kyung-Chul Choi
    Kyeong-Sik Ryu
    Sang-Ho Lee
    Yeong Hyeon Kim
    Sung Jae Lee
    Chun-Kun Park
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 14
  • [3] Biomechanical comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion: stand-alone interbody cage versus interbody cage with pedicle screw fixation - a finite element analysis
    Choi, Kyung-Chul
    Ryu, Kyeong-Sik
    Lee, Sang-Ho
    Kim, Yeong Hyeon
    Lee, Sung Jae
    Park, Chun-Kun
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2013, 14
  • [4] Biomechanical Analysis of Stand-alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Adjacent Segment Disease
    Chioffe, Michael
    McCarthy, Michael
    Swiatek, Peter R.
    Maslak, Joseph P.
    Voronov, Leonard I.
    Havey, Robert M.
    Muriuki, Muturi
    Patwardhan, Avinash
    Patel, Alpesh A.
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2019, 11 (11)
  • [5] Biomechanical comparison of a new stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion cage with established fixation techniques - A three-dimensional finite element analysis
    Chen S.-H.
    Tai C.-L.
    Lin C.-Y.
    Hsieh P.-H.
    Chen W.-P.
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 9 (1)
  • [6] Biomechanical Evaluation of Stand-Alone Oblique Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Under 3 Different Bone Mineral Density Conditions: A Finite Element Analysis
    Wang, Zemin
    Ma, Rong
    Cai, Zecheng
    Wang, Zhiqiang
    Yang, Shulong
    Ge, Zhaohui
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2021, 155 : E285 - E293
  • [7] Reasons for revision following stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion
    Nguyen, Austin Q.
    Harvey, Jackson P.
    Khanna, Krishn
    Basques, Bryce A.
    Harada, Garrett K.
    Phillips, Frank M.
    Singh, Kern
    Dewald, Christopher
    An, Howard S.
    Colman, Matthew W.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2021, 35 (01) : 60 - 66
  • [8] Comparison of Lumbar Laminectomy Alone, Lumbar Laminectomy and Fusion, Stand-alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Stand-alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Review of the Literature
    Shah, Manan
    Kolb, Bradley
    Yilmaz, Emre
    Halalmeh, Dia R.
    Moisi, Marc D.
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2019, 11 (09)
  • [9] Incidence and impact of implant subsidence after stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion
    Bocahut, N.
    Audureau, E.
    Poignard, A.
    Delambre, J.
    Queinnecc, S.
    Lachaniette, C. -H. Flouzat
    Allain, J.
    ORTHOPAEDICS & TRAUMATOLOGY-SURGERY & RESEARCH, 2018, 104 (03) : 405 - 410
  • [10] Fusion rate for stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review
    Manzur, Mustfa K.
    Steinhaus, Michael E.
    Virk, Sohrab S.
    Jivanelli, Bridget
    Vaishnav, Avani S.
    McAnany, Steven J.
    Albert, Todd J.
    Iyer, Sravisht
    Gang, Catherine Himo
    Qureshi, Sheeraz A.
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2020, 20 (11): : 1816 - 1825