Cargando…

Comparison of Different Insertion Techniques for Lumbosacral Fixation Improvement: A Finite Element Study

OBJECTIVE: We create a new S1 cortical screw trajectory technique using 3D reconstruction and the finite element (FE) method to provide a more reliable theoretical basis for clinical practices and to advance internal fixation technology for treatment of lumbosacral degenerative diseases. METHODS: Th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Han, Da‐peng, Wang, Jia‐yin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7031541/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32077260
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.12624
_version_ 1783499396892065792
author Han, Da‐peng
Wang, Jia‐yin
author_facet Han, Da‐peng
Wang, Jia‐yin
author_sort Han, Da‐peng
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: We create a new S1 cortical screw trajectory technique using 3D reconstruction and the finite element (FE) method to provide a more reliable theoretical basis for clinical practices and to advance internal fixation technology for treatment of lumbosacral degenerative diseases. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients (aged from 40 to 70 years) who needed intervertebral fusion surgery between August 2016 and August 2017. Data of patients with lumbosacral lesions was scanned and measured by 64‐row spiral CT, and were then transmitted to the GE‐AW4.3 post‐processing system for 3D reconstruction. The trajectories of the three different screws were simulated by FE software and processed by mimics software to simulate the screw path: traditional PS fixation (Model A); traditional cortical screw (Model B); and new cortical screw (Model C). The CT value of the bone around the screw canal was recorded. Biomechanical effects of the three screws were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The displacement of flexion and extension, the vertebral body stress of right torsion, and the cage stress of flexion showed no significant differences among the three models (P > 0.05). The results demonstrated that cortical screws exceeded pedicle screws in stability and pullout force. Models B and C showed higher vertebral displacement in left bending (0.41 and 0.31 mm) and right bending (0.58 and 0.40 mm), lower vertebral body stress on extension (48.37 and 38.92 MPa), left bending (0.76 and 0.74 mm) and right bending (0.50 and 0.53 mm), and higher cage stress on left bending (162.19 and 160.63 MPa), right bending (150.02 and 150.05 MPa), left torsion (158.45 and 146.27 MPa) and right torsion (167.33 and 171.15 MPa) (all P < 0.05) compared to model A. Compared to Model B, Model C had higher displacement of left and right torsion, lower pressure in extension and flexion, and lower stress on cages in extension (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The new cortical screw insertion method has similar effects to traditional cortical screw fixation. However, it demonstrated advantages in promoting lumbosacral interbody fusion, which protects vessels and nerves.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7031541
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70315412020-02-27 Comparison of Different Insertion Techniques for Lumbosacral Fixation Improvement: A Finite Element Study Han, Da‐peng Wang, Jia‐yin Orthop Surg Clinical Articles OBJECTIVE: We create a new S1 cortical screw trajectory technique using 3D reconstruction and the finite element (FE) method to provide a more reliable theoretical basis for clinical practices and to advance internal fixation technology for treatment of lumbosacral degenerative diseases. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients (aged from 40 to 70 years) who needed intervertebral fusion surgery between August 2016 and August 2017. Data of patients with lumbosacral lesions was scanned and measured by 64‐row spiral CT, and were then transmitted to the GE‐AW4.3 post‐processing system for 3D reconstruction. The trajectories of the three different screws were simulated by FE software and processed by mimics software to simulate the screw path: traditional PS fixation (Model A); traditional cortical screw (Model B); and new cortical screw (Model C). The CT value of the bone around the screw canal was recorded. Biomechanical effects of the three screws were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The displacement of flexion and extension, the vertebral body stress of right torsion, and the cage stress of flexion showed no significant differences among the three models (P > 0.05). The results demonstrated that cortical screws exceeded pedicle screws in stability and pullout force. Models B and C showed higher vertebral displacement in left bending (0.41 and 0.31 mm) and right bending (0.58 and 0.40 mm), lower vertebral body stress on extension (48.37 and 38.92 MPa), left bending (0.76 and 0.74 mm) and right bending (0.50 and 0.53 mm), and higher cage stress on left bending (162.19 and 160.63 MPa), right bending (150.02 and 150.05 MPa), left torsion (158.45 and 146.27 MPa) and right torsion (167.33 and 171.15 MPa) (all P < 0.05) compared to model A. Compared to Model B, Model C had higher displacement of left and right torsion, lower pressure in extension and flexion, and lower stress on cages in extension (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The new cortical screw insertion method has similar effects to traditional cortical screw fixation. However, it demonstrated advantages in promoting lumbosacral interbody fusion, which protects vessels and nerves. John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2020-02-19 /pmc/articles/PMC7031541/ /pubmed/32077260 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.12624 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Chinese Orthopaedic Association and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Clinical Articles
Han, Da‐peng
Wang, Jia‐yin
Comparison of Different Insertion Techniques for Lumbosacral Fixation Improvement: A Finite Element Study
title Comparison of Different Insertion Techniques for Lumbosacral Fixation Improvement: A Finite Element Study
title_full Comparison of Different Insertion Techniques for Lumbosacral Fixation Improvement: A Finite Element Study
title_fullStr Comparison of Different Insertion Techniques for Lumbosacral Fixation Improvement: A Finite Element Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Different Insertion Techniques for Lumbosacral Fixation Improvement: A Finite Element Study
title_short Comparison of Different Insertion Techniques for Lumbosacral Fixation Improvement: A Finite Element Study
title_sort comparison of different insertion techniques for lumbosacral fixation improvement: a finite element study
topic Clinical Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7031541/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32077260
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.12624
work_keys_str_mv AT handapeng comparisonofdifferentinsertiontechniquesforlumbosacralfixationimprovementafiniteelementstudy
AT wangjiayin comparisonofdifferentinsertiontechniquesforlumbosacralfixationimprovementafiniteelementstudy