Cargando…
A comparative analysis of using cage acrossing the vertebral ring apophysis in normal and osteoporotic models under endplate injury: a finite element analysis
Background: Lateral lumbar fusion is an advanced, minimally invasive treatment for degenerative lumbar diseases. It involves different cage designs, primarily varying in size. This study aims to investigate the biomechanics of the long cage spanning the ring apophysis in both normal and osteoporotic...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10664026/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38026854 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1263751 |
_version_ | 1785138530142388224 |
---|---|
author | Wang, Jian Geng, Ziming Ma, Xiang Zhang, Zepei Miao, Jun |
author_facet | Wang, Jian Geng, Ziming Ma, Xiang Zhang, Zepei Miao, Jun |
author_sort | Wang, Jian |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: Lateral lumbar fusion is an advanced, minimally invasive treatment for degenerative lumbar diseases. It involves different cage designs, primarily varying in size. This study aims to investigate the biomechanics of the long cage spanning the ring apophysis in both normal and osteoporotic models, considering endplate damage, using finite element analysis. Methods: Model 1 was an intact endplate with a long cage spanning the ring apophysis. Model 2 was an endplate decortication with a long cage spanning the ring apophysis. Model 3 was an intact endplate with a short cage. Model 4 was an endplate decortication with a short cage. On the basis of the four original models, further osteoporosis models were created, yielding a total of eight finite element models. The provided passage delineates a study that elucidates the utilization of finite element analysis as a methodology to simulate and analyze the biomechanical repercussions ensuing from the adoption of two distinct types of intervertebral fusion devices (cages) within the physiological framework of a human body. Results: The investigation found no appreciable changes between Models 1 and 2 in the range of motion at the fixed and neighboring segments, the L3-4 IDP, screw-rod stress, endplate stress, or stress on the trabecular bone of the L5. Increases in these stresses were seen in models 3 and 4 in the ranges of 0.4%–676.1%, 252.9%–526.9%, 27.3%–516.6%, and 11.4%–109.3%, respectively. The osteoporotic models for scenarios 3 and 4 exhibit a similar trend to their respective normal bone density models, but these osteoporotic models consistently have higher numerical values. In particular, except for L3-4 IDP, the maximum values of these parameters in osteoporotic Models 3 and 4 were much higher than those in normal bone quality Models 1 and 2, rising by 385.3%, 116%, 435.1%, 758.3%, and 786.1%, respectively. Conclusion: Regardless of endplate injury or osteoporosis, it is advised to utilize a long cage that is 5 mm longer on each side than the bilateral pedicles because it has good biomechanical features and may lower the likelihood of problems after surgery. Additionally, using Long cages in individuals with osteoporosis may help avoid adjacent segment disease. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10664026 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-106640262023-01-01 A comparative analysis of using cage acrossing the vertebral ring apophysis in normal and osteoporotic models under endplate injury: a finite element analysis Wang, Jian Geng, Ziming Ma, Xiang Zhang, Zepei Miao, Jun Front Bioeng Biotechnol Bioengineering and Biotechnology Background: Lateral lumbar fusion is an advanced, minimally invasive treatment for degenerative lumbar diseases. It involves different cage designs, primarily varying in size. This study aims to investigate the biomechanics of the long cage spanning the ring apophysis in both normal and osteoporotic models, considering endplate damage, using finite element analysis. Methods: Model 1 was an intact endplate with a long cage spanning the ring apophysis. Model 2 was an endplate decortication with a long cage spanning the ring apophysis. Model 3 was an intact endplate with a short cage. Model 4 was an endplate decortication with a short cage. On the basis of the four original models, further osteoporosis models were created, yielding a total of eight finite element models. The provided passage delineates a study that elucidates the utilization of finite element analysis as a methodology to simulate and analyze the biomechanical repercussions ensuing from the adoption of two distinct types of intervertebral fusion devices (cages) within the physiological framework of a human body. Results: The investigation found no appreciable changes between Models 1 and 2 in the range of motion at the fixed and neighboring segments, the L3-4 IDP, screw-rod stress, endplate stress, or stress on the trabecular bone of the L5. Increases in these stresses were seen in models 3 and 4 in the ranges of 0.4%–676.1%, 252.9%–526.9%, 27.3%–516.6%, and 11.4%–109.3%, respectively. The osteoporotic models for scenarios 3 and 4 exhibit a similar trend to their respective normal bone density models, but these osteoporotic models consistently have higher numerical values. In particular, except for L3-4 IDP, the maximum values of these parameters in osteoporotic Models 3 and 4 were much higher than those in normal bone quality Models 1 and 2, rising by 385.3%, 116%, 435.1%, 758.3%, and 786.1%, respectively. Conclusion: Regardless of endplate injury or osteoporosis, it is advised to utilize a long cage that is 5 mm longer on each side than the bilateral pedicles because it has good biomechanical features and may lower the likelihood of problems after surgery. Additionally, using Long cages in individuals with osteoporosis may help avoid adjacent segment disease. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-11-08 /pmc/articles/PMC10664026/ /pubmed/38026854 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1263751 Text en Copyright © 2023 Wang, Geng, Ma, Zhang and Miao. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Bioengineering and Biotechnology Wang, Jian Geng, Ziming Ma, Xiang Zhang, Zepei Miao, Jun A comparative analysis of using cage acrossing the vertebral ring apophysis in normal and osteoporotic models under endplate injury: a finite element analysis |
title | A comparative analysis of using cage acrossing the vertebral ring apophysis in normal and osteoporotic models under endplate injury: a finite element analysis |
title_full | A comparative analysis of using cage acrossing the vertebral ring apophysis in normal and osteoporotic models under endplate injury: a finite element analysis |
title_fullStr | A comparative analysis of using cage acrossing the vertebral ring apophysis in normal and osteoporotic models under endplate injury: a finite element analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparative analysis of using cage acrossing the vertebral ring apophysis in normal and osteoporotic models under endplate injury: a finite element analysis |
title_short | A comparative analysis of using cage acrossing the vertebral ring apophysis in normal and osteoporotic models under endplate injury: a finite element analysis |
title_sort | comparative analysis of using cage acrossing the vertebral ring apophysis in normal and osteoporotic models under endplate injury: a finite element analysis |
topic | Bioengineering and Biotechnology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10664026/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38026854 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1263751 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wangjian acomparativeanalysisofusingcageacrossingthevertebralringapophysisinnormalandosteoporoticmodelsunderendplateinjuryafiniteelementanalysis AT gengziming acomparativeanalysisofusingcageacrossingthevertebralringapophysisinnormalandosteoporoticmodelsunderendplateinjuryafiniteelementanalysis AT maxiang acomparativeanalysisofusingcageacrossingthevertebralringapophysisinnormalandosteoporoticmodelsunderendplateinjuryafiniteelementanalysis AT zhangzepei acomparativeanalysisofusingcageacrossingthevertebralringapophysisinnormalandosteoporoticmodelsunderendplateinjuryafiniteelementanalysis AT miaojun acomparativeanalysisofusingcageacrossingthevertebralringapophysisinnormalandosteoporoticmodelsunderendplateinjuryafiniteelementanalysis AT wangjian comparativeanalysisofusingcageacrossingthevertebralringapophysisinnormalandosteoporoticmodelsunderendplateinjuryafiniteelementanalysis AT gengziming comparativeanalysisofusingcageacrossingthevertebralringapophysisinnormalandosteoporoticmodelsunderendplateinjuryafiniteelementanalysis AT maxiang comparativeanalysisofusingcageacrossingthevertebralringapophysisinnormalandosteoporoticmodelsunderendplateinjuryafiniteelementanalysis AT zhangzepei comparativeanalysisofusingcageacrossingthevertebralringapophysisinnormalandosteoporoticmodelsunderendplateinjuryafiniteelementanalysis AT miaojun comparativeanalysisofusingcageacrossingthevertebralringapophysisinnormalandosteoporoticmodelsunderendplateinjuryafiniteelementanalysis |