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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |