Cargando…

A comparison of the biomechanical properties of three different lumbar internal fixation methods in the treatment of lumbosacral spinal tuberculosis: finite element analysis

There are various internal fixation methods in treating lumbosacral spinal tuberculosis. The study compared the stability and stress distribution in surrounding tissues/implants, such as discs, endplates and screw-rod internal fixation system, etc. when applying three different lumbar internal fixat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Jiantao, Gong, Xi, Wang, Kao, Li, Xingyuan, Zhang, Xiwei, Sun, Jiajun, Zhu, Yihan, Ai, Yixiang, Ren, Jing, Xiu, Jintao, Ji, Wenchen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10344955/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37443369
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-32624-2
_version_ 1785072976669966336
author Liu, Jiantao
Gong, Xi
Wang, Kao
Li, Xingyuan
Zhang, Xiwei
Sun, Jiajun
Zhu, Yihan
Ai, Yixiang
Ren, Jing
Xiu, Jintao
Ji, Wenchen
author_facet Liu, Jiantao
Gong, Xi
Wang, Kao
Li, Xingyuan
Zhang, Xiwei
Sun, Jiajun
Zhu, Yihan
Ai, Yixiang
Ren, Jing
Xiu, Jintao
Ji, Wenchen
author_sort Liu, Jiantao
collection PubMed
description There are various internal fixation methods in treating lumbosacral spinal tuberculosis. The study compared the stability and stress distribution in surrounding tissues/implants, such as discs, endplates and screw-rod internal fixation system, etc. when applying three different lumbar internal fixation methods to treat lumbosacral spinal tuberculosis. A finite element model was constructed and validated. The spinal stability was restored using three methods: a titanium cage with lateral double screw-rod fixation (group 1), autologous bone with posterior double screw-rod fixation (group 2), and a titanium cage with posterior double screw-rod fixation (group 3). For comparison, group 4 represented the intact L3-S1 spine. Finally, a load was applied, and the ranges of motion and Von Mises stresses in the cortical endplates, screw-rod internal fixation system and cortical bone around the screws in the different groups were recorded and analyzed. All six ranges of motion (flexion, extension, left/right lateral bending, left/right rotation) of the surgical segment were substantially lower in groups 1 (0.53° ~ 1.41°), 2 (0.68° ~ 1.54°) and 3 (0.55° ~ 0.64°) than in group 4 (4.48° ~ 10.12°). The maximum stress in the screw-rod internal fixation system was clearly higher in group 2 than in groups 1 and 3 under flexion, left/right lateral bending, and left/right rotation. However, in extension, group 1 had the highest maximum stress in the screw-rod internal fixation system. Group 2 had the lowest peak stresses in the cortical endplates in all directions. The peak stresses in the cortical bone around the screws were higher in group 1 and group 2 than in group 3 in all directions. Thus, titanium cage with posterior double screw-rod fixation has more advantages in immediate reconstruction of lumbosacral spinal stability and prevention of screw loosening.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10344955
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103449552023-07-15 A comparison of the biomechanical properties of three different lumbar internal fixation methods in the treatment of lumbosacral spinal tuberculosis: finite element analysis Liu, Jiantao Gong, Xi Wang, Kao Li, Xingyuan Zhang, Xiwei Sun, Jiajun Zhu, Yihan Ai, Yixiang Ren, Jing Xiu, Jintao Ji, Wenchen Sci Rep Article There are various internal fixation methods in treating lumbosacral spinal tuberculosis. The study compared the stability and stress distribution in surrounding tissues/implants, such as discs, endplates and screw-rod internal fixation system, etc. when applying three different lumbar internal fixation methods to treat lumbosacral spinal tuberculosis. A finite element model was constructed and validated. The spinal stability was restored using three methods: a titanium cage with lateral double screw-rod fixation (group 1), autologous bone with posterior double screw-rod fixation (group 2), and a titanium cage with posterior double screw-rod fixation (group 3). For comparison, group 4 represented the intact L3-S1 spine. Finally, a load was applied, and the ranges of motion and Von Mises stresses in the cortical endplates, screw-rod internal fixation system and cortical bone around the screws in the different groups were recorded and analyzed. All six ranges of motion (flexion, extension, left/right lateral bending, left/right rotation) of the surgical segment were substantially lower in groups 1 (0.53° ~ 1.41°), 2 (0.68° ~ 1.54°) and 3 (0.55° ~ 0.64°) than in group 4 (4.48° ~ 10.12°). The maximum stress in the screw-rod internal fixation system was clearly higher in group 2 than in groups 1 and 3 under flexion, left/right lateral bending, and left/right rotation. However, in extension, group 1 had the highest maximum stress in the screw-rod internal fixation system. Group 2 had the lowest peak stresses in the cortical endplates in all directions. The peak stresses in the cortical bone around the screws were higher in group 1 and group 2 than in group 3 in all directions. Thus, titanium cage with posterior double screw-rod fixation has more advantages in immediate reconstruction of lumbosacral spinal stability and prevention of screw loosening. Nature Publishing Group UK 2023-07-13 /pmc/articles/PMC10344955/ /pubmed/37443369 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-32624-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Liu, Jiantao
Gong, Xi
Wang, Kao
Li, Xingyuan
Zhang, Xiwei
Sun, Jiajun
Zhu, Yihan
Ai, Yixiang
Ren, Jing
Xiu, Jintao
Ji, Wenchen
A comparison of the biomechanical properties of three different lumbar internal fixation methods in the treatment of lumbosacral spinal tuberculosis: finite element analysis
title A comparison of the biomechanical properties of three different lumbar internal fixation methods in the treatment of lumbosacral spinal tuberculosis: finite element analysis
title_full A comparison of the biomechanical properties of three different lumbar internal fixation methods in the treatment of lumbosacral spinal tuberculosis: finite element analysis
title_fullStr A comparison of the biomechanical properties of three different lumbar internal fixation methods in the treatment of lumbosacral spinal tuberculosis: finite element analysis
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of the biomechanical properties of three different lumbar internal fixation methods in the treatment of lumbosacral spinal tuberculosis: finite element analysis
title_short A comparison of the biomechanical properties of three different lumbar internal fixation methods in the treatment of lumbosacral spinal tuberculosis: finite element analysis
title_sort comparison of the biomechanical properties of three different lumbar internal fixation methods in the treatment of lumbosacral spinal tuberculosis: finite element analysis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10344955/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37443369
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-32624-2
work_keys_str_mv AT liujiantao acomparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis
AT gongxi acomparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis
AT wangkao acomparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis
AT lixingyuan acomparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis
AT zhangxiwei acomparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis
AT sunjiajun acomparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis
AT zhuyihan acomparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis
AT aiyixiang acomparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis
AT renjing acomparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis
AT xiujintao acomparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis
AT jiwenchen acomparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis
AT liujiantao comparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis
AT gongxi comparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis
AT wangkao comparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis
AT lixingyuan comparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis
AT zhangxiwei comparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis
AT sunjiajun comparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis
AT zhuyihan comparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis
AT aiyixiang comparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis
AT renjing comparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis
AT xiujintao comparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis
AT jiwenchen comparisonofthebiomechanicalpropertiesofthreedifferentlumbarinternalfixationmethodsinthetreatmentoflumbosacralspinaltuberculosisfiniteelementanalysis