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
  • [31] Stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration following previous lumbar fusion
    Louie, Philip K.
    Varthi, Arya G.
    Narain, Ankur S.
    Lei, Victor
    Bohl, Daniel D.
    Shifflett, Grant D.
    Phillips, Frank M.
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2018, 18 (11): : 2025 - 2032
  • [32] Is stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion superior to instrumented lateral lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-level, low-grade, lumbar spondylolisthesis?
    Li, Hao
    Li, Jun
    Tao, Yiqing
    Li, Fangcai
    Chen, Qixin
    Chen, Gang
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2021, 85 : 84 - 91
  • [33] Biomechanical evaluation of autologous bone-cage in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis
    Haodong Zhu
    Weibin Zhong
    Ping Zhang
    Xiaoming Liu
    Junming Huang
    Fatai Liu
    Jian Li
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 21
  • [34] Biomechanical evaluation of autologous bone-cage in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis
    Zhu, Haodong
    Zhong, Weibin
    Zhang, Ping
    Liu, Xiaoming
    Huang, Junming
    Liu, Fatai
    Li, Jian
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2020, 21 (01)
  • [35] Effect of Stand-Alone Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF) in Treating Lumbar Spine Lesions
    Song, Yongxing
    Wang, Haidong
    MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR, 2023, 29
  • [36] Graft subsidence as a predictor of revision surgery following stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion
    Tempel, Zachary J.
    McDowell, Michael M.
    Panczykowski, David M.
    Gandhoke, Gurpreet S.
    Hamilton, D. Kojo
    Okonkwo, David O.
    Kanter, Adam S.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2018, 28 (01) : 50 - 56
  • [37] When to Consider Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Is There a Role for a Comeback With New Implants?
    Menezes, Cristiano Magalhaes
    Menezes, Erica Godinho
    Asghar, Jahangir
    Guiroy, Alfredo
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2022, 16 : S69 - S75
  • [38] Biomechanical Analysis of Porous Additive Manufactured Cages for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Analysis
    Zhang, Zhenjun
    Li, Hui
    Fogel, Guy R.
    Liao, Zhenhua
    Li, Yang
    Liu, Weiqiang
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2018, 111 : E581 - E591
  • [39] Graft Subsidence as a Predictor of Revision Surgery Following Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Tempel, Zachary J.
    Panczykowski, David
    Zwagerman, Nathan
    Gandhoke, Gurpreet
    Hamilton, D.
    Okonkwo, David
    Kanter, Adam
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2016, 124 (04) : A1207 - A1207
  • [40] Incidence of adjacent-segment surgery following stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion
    Nayar, Gautam
    Roy, Souvik
    Lutfi, Waseem
    Agarwal, Nitin
    Alan, Nima
    Ozpinar, Alp
    Hamilton, Kojo
    Okonkwo, David O.
    Kanter, Adam S.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2021, 35 (03) : 270 - 274