Cargando…

Biomechanical comparison of three stand-alone lumbar cages — a three-dimensional finite element analysis

BACKGROUND: For anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), stand-alone cages can be supplemented with vertebral plate, locking screws, or threaded cylinder to avoid the use of posterior fixation. Intuitively, the plate, screw, and cylinder aim to be embedded into the vertebral bodies to effectively im...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Shih-Hao, Chiang, Ming-Chieh, Lin, Jin-Fu, Lin, Shang-Chih, Hung, Ching-Hua
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3852219/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24088294
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-281
_version_ 1782478627721445376
author Chen, Shih-Hao
Chiang, Ming-Chieh
Lin, Jin-Fu
Lin, Shang-Chih
Hung, Ching-Hua
author_facet Chen, Shih-Hao
Chiang, Ming-Chieh
Lin, Jin-Fu
Lin, Shang-Chih
Hung, Ching-Hua
author_sort Chen, Shih-Hao
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: For anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), stand-alone cages can be supplemented with vertebral plate, locking screws, or threaded cylinder to avoid the use of posterior fixation. Intuitively, the plate, screw, and cylinder aim to be embedded into the vertebral bodies to effectively immobilize the cage itself. The kinematic and mechanical effects of these integrated components on the lumbar construct have not been extensively studied. A nonlinearly lumbar finite-element model was developed and validated to investigate the biomechanical differences between three stand-alone (Latero, SynFix, and Stabilis) and SynCage-Open plus transpedicular fixation. All four cages were instrumented at the L3-4 level. METHODS: The lumbar models were subjected to the follower load along the lumbar column and the moment at the lumbar top to produce flexion (FL), extension (EX), left/right lateral bending (LLB, RLB), and left/right axial rotation (LAR, RAR). A 10 Nm moment was applied to obtain the six physiological motions in all models. The comparison indices included disc range of motion (ROM), facet contact force, and stresses of the annulus and implants. RESULTS: At the surgical level, the SynCage-open model supplemented with transpedicular fixation decreased ROM (>76%) greatly; while the SynFix model decreased ROM 56-72%, the Latero model decreased ROM 36-91%, in all motions as compared with the INT model. However, the Stabilis model decreased ROM slightly in extension (11%), lateral bending (21%), and axial rotation (34%). At the adjacent levels, there were no obvious differences in ROM and annulus stress among all instrumented models. CONCLUSIONS: ALIF instrumentation with the Latero or SynFix cage provides an acceptable stability for clinical use without the requirement of additional posterior fixation. However, the Stabilis cage is not favored in extension and lateral bending because of insufficient stabilization.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3852219
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38522192013-12-06 Biomechanical comparison of three stand-alone lumbar cages — a three-dimensional finite element analysis Chen, Shih-Hao Chiang, Ming-Chieh Lin, Jin-Fu Lin, Shang-Chih Hung, Ching-Hua BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: For anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), stand-alone cages can be supplemented with vertebral plate, locking screws, or threaded cylinder to avoid the use of posterior fixation. Intuitively, the plate, screw, and cylinder aim to be embedded into the vertebral bodies to effectively immobilize the cage itself. The kinematic and mechanical effects of these integrated components on the lumbar construct have not been extensively studied. A nonlinearly lumbar finite-element model was developed and validated to investigate the biomechanical differences between three stand-alone (Latero, SynFix, and Stabilis) and SynCage-Open plus transpedicular fixation. All four cages were instrumented at the L3-4 level. METHODS: The lumbar models were subjected to the follower load along the lumbar column and the moment at the lumbar top to produce flexion (FL), extension (EX), left/right lateral bending (LLB, RLB), and left/right axial rotation (LAR, RAR). A 10 Nm moment was applied to obtain the six physiological motions in all models. The comparison indices included disc range of motion (ROM), facet contact force, and stresses of the annulus and implants. RESULTS: At the surgical level, the SynCage-open model supplemented with transpedicular fixation decreased ROM (>76%) greatly; while the SynFix model decreased ROM 56-72%, the Latero model decreased ROM 36-91%, in all motions as compared with the INT model. However, the Stabilis model decreased ROM slightly in extension (11%), lateral bending (21%), and axial rotation (34%). At the adjacent levels, there were no obvious differences in ROM and annulus stress among all instrumented models. CONCLUSIONS: ALIF instrumentation with the Latero or SynFix cage provides an acceptable stability for clinical use without the requirement of additional posterior fixation. However, the Stabilis cage is not favored in extension and lateral bending because of insufficient stabilization. BioMed Central 2013-10-02 /pmc/articles/PMC3852219/ /pubmed/24088294 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-281 Text en Copyright © 2013 Chen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Chen, Shih-Hao
Chiang, Ming-Chieh
Lin, Jin-Fu
Lin, Shang-Chih
Hung, Ching-Hua
Biomechanical comparison of three stand-alone lumbar cages — a three-dimensional finite element analysis
title Biomechanical comparison of three stand-alone lumbar cages — a three-dimensional finite element analysis
title_full Biomechanical comparison of three stand-alone lumbar cages — a three-dimensional finite element analysis
title_fullStr Biomechanical comparison of three stand-alone lumbar cages — a three-dimensional finite element analysis
title_full_unstemmed Biomechanical comparison of three stand-alone lumbar cages — a three-dimensional finite element analysis
title_short Biomechanical comparison of three stand-alone lumbar cages — a three-dimensional finite element analysis
title_sort biomechanical comparison of three stand-alone lumbar cages — a three-dimensional finite element analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3852219/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24088294
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-281
work_keys_str_mv AT chenshihhao biomechanicalcomparisonofthreestandalonelumbarcagesathreedimensionalfiniteelementanalysis
AT chiangmingchieh biomechanicalcomparisonofthreestandalonelumbarcagesathreedimensionalfiniteelementanalysis
AT linjinfu biomechanicalcomparisonofthreestandalonelumbarcagesathreedimensionalfiniteelementanalysis
AT linshangchih biomechanicalcomparisonofthreestandalonelumbarcagesathreedimensionalfiniteelementanalysis
AT hungchinghua biomechanicalcomparisonofthreestandalonelumbarcagesathreedimensionalfiniteelementanalysis