Finite Element Analysis of a Novel Fusion Strategy in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

被引:5
|
作者
Han, Zhenchuan [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Ren, Bowen [1 ,2 ]
Zhang, Long [4 ]
Ma, Chao [5 ]
Liu, Jianheng [2 ]
Li, Jiantao [2 ]
Liu, Xiao [2 ]
Liu, Qingzu [1 ,2 ]
Mao, Keya [2 ]
Tang, Peifu [2 ]
机构
[1] Chinese PLA Med Sch, Beijing 100089, Peoples R China
[2] Peoples Liberat Army Gen Hosp, Fourth Med Ctr, Sr Dept Orthoped, Beijing 100089, Peoples R China
[3] PLA Rocket Force Characterist Med Ctr, Dept Orthoped, Beijing 100088, Peoples R China
[4] Kunming Med Univ, Kunming 650000, Yunnan, Peoples R China
[5] Beijing Informat Sci & Technol Univ, Key Lab Modern Measurement & Control Technol, Minist Educ, Beijing 100192, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
RISK-FACTORS; BIOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS; CAGE RETROPULSION; DISC; DISEASE; SURGERY;
D O I
10.1155/2022/4266564
中图分类号
Q81 [生物工程学(生物技术)]; Q93 [微生物学];
学科分类号
071005 ; 0836 ; 090102 ; 100705 ;
摘要
Purpose. To evaluate the biomechanics of a novel fusion strategy (hybrid internal fixation+horizontal cage position) in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Methods. MIS-TLIF finite element models for three fusion strategies were created based on computed tomography images, namely, Model-A, hybrid internal fixation (ipsilateral pedicle screw and contralateral translaminar facet screw fixation)+horizontal cage position; Model-B, bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) fixation+horizontal cage position; and Model-C, BPS fixation+oblique 45 & DEG; cage position. A preload of 500 N and a moment of 10 Nm were applied to the models to simulate lumbar motion, and the models' range of motion (ROM), peak stress of the internal fixation system, and cage were assessed. Results. The ROM for Models A, B, and C were not different (P > 0.05) but were significantly lower than the ROM of Model-INT (P < 0.0001). Although there were subtle differences in the ROM ratio for Models A, B, and C, the trend was similar. The peak stress of the internal fixation system was significantly higher in Model-A than that of Models B and C, but only the difference between Models A and B was significant (P < 0.05). The peak stress of the cage in Model-A was significantly lower than that of Models B and C (P < 0.01). Conclusion. Hybrid internal fixation with horizontal single cage implantation can provide the same biomechanical stability as traditional fixation while reducing peak stress on the cage and vertebral endplate.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a technical description and review of the literature
    Martin Vazan
    Jens Gempt
    Bernhard Meyer
    Niels Buchmann
    Yu- Mi Ryang
    Acta Neurochirurgica, 2017, 159 : 1137 - 1146
  • [22] Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Meta-analysis
    Xie, Lei
    Wu, Wen-Jian
    Liang, Yu
    CHINESE MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2016, 129 (16) : 1969 - +
  • [23] Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Meta-analysis
    Xie Lei
    Wu WenJian
    Liang Yu
    Department of Orthopedics Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Shanghai China
    Shanghai Key Laboratory for Prevention and Treatment of Bone and Joint Diseases with Integrated ChineseWestern Medicine Shanghai Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Shanghai China
    中华医学杂志英文版, 2016, 129 (16) : 1969 - 1986
  • [24] Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
    Hu, Xijian
    Yan, Lei
    Jin, Xinjie
    Liu, Haifeng
    Chai, Jing
    Zhao, Bin
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2024, 14 (01) : 295 - 305
  • [25] Comparison of midline lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of lumbar degeneration disease
    Zhang, Xuelei
    Zhang, Yu
    Gu, Zuchao
    Li, Guo
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2024, 14 (01):
  • [26] Biomechanical evaluation of Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical analysis
    Li, Jia-Rui
    Yan, Yang
    Wu, Xiao-Gang
    He, Li-Ming
    Feng, Hao-Yu
    COMPUTER METHODS IN BIOMECHANICS AND BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, 2024, 27 (03) : 285 - 295
  • [27] Minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Kulkarni, Arvind G.
    Bohra, Hussain
    Dhruv, Abhilash
    Sarraf, Abhishek
    Bassi, Anupreet
    Patil, Vishwanath M.
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDICS, 2016, 50 (05) : 464 - 472
  • [28] Biomechanical Evaluation of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion on the Adjacent Segment: A Finite Element Analysis
    Wang, Bingjin
    Hua, Wenbin
    Ke, Wencan
    Lu, Saideng
    Li, Xingsheng
    Zeng, Xianlin
    Yang, Cao
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2019, 126 : E819 - E824
  • [29] Minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Arvind G. Kulkarni
    Hussain Bohra
    Abhilash Dhruv
    Abhishek Sarraf
    Anupreet Bassi
    Vishwanath M. Patil
    Indian Journal of Orthopaedics, 2016, 50 : 464 - 472
  • [30] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Diseases
    Fan Shunwu
    Zhao Xing
    Zhao Fengdong
    Fang Xiangqian
    SPINE, 2010, 35 (17) : 1615 - 1620