Cargando…

A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy

OBJECTIVE: To compare the spinal stability with different fixation methods after thoracic TES using finite element analysis METHODS: The spinal finite element model was established from a healthy volunteer, and the validity was verified. The models of T8 thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) wi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liang, Yun, Cao, Yuanwu, Gong, Zhiguo, Jiang, Chang, Jin, Lixia, Li, Zheng, Chen, Zixian, Jiang, Chun, Jiang, Xiaoxing
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7422552/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32787876
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0
_version_ 1783570026880565248
author Liang, Yun
Cao, Yuanwu
Gong, Zhiguo
Jiang, Chang
Jin, Lixia
Li, Zheng
Chen, Zixian
Jiang, Chun
Jiang, Xiaoxing
author_facet Liang, Yun
Cao, Yuanwu
Gong, Zhiguo
Jiang, Chang
Jin, Lixia
Li, Zheng
Chen, Zixian
Jiang, Chun
Jiang, Xiaoxing
author_sort Liang, Yun
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the spinal stability with different fixation methods after thoracic TES using finite element analysis METHODS: The spinal finite element model was established from a healthy volunteer, and the validity was verified. The models of T8 thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) with and without artificial vertebral body were established combination with different fixation methods: the first was long segment fixation with fixed segments T5–7, T9–11; the second was short segment fixation with fixed segments T6–7, T9–10; the third was modified short segment with a pair of vertebral body screws on T7 and T9 added on the basis of short segment fixation. The motions of each model in standing state were simulated in software. The range of motion (ROM) and internal fixation stress changes were analyzed. RESULTS: When anterior support was effective, the three fixation methods could effectively maintain the stability of the spine. However, when anterior support failed, the ROM of the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group in the flexion-extension directions was significantly higher than that of when the anterior support existed, while the modified short segment fixation group had no significant changes. Meanwhile, the stress of internal fixation in the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group were greatly increased. However, there were no significant changes in modified short segment fixation group. CONCLUSION: After TES, the presence of the thoracic cage gives partial anterior stabilization. When the anterior support failed, the modified short segment fixation method can provide better stability.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7422552
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74225522020-08-21 A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy Liang, Yun Cao, Yuanwu Gong, Zhiguo Jiang, Chang Jin, Lixia Li, Zheng Chen, Zixian Jiang, Chun Jiang, Xiaoxing J Orthop Surg Res Research Article OBJECTIVE: To compare the spinal stability with different fixation methods after thoracic TES using finite element analysis METHODS: The spinal finite element model was established from a healthy volunteer, and the validity was verified. The models of T8 thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) with and without artificial vertebral body were established combination with different fixation methods: the first was long segment fixation with fixed segments T5–7, T9–11; the second was short segment fixation with fixed segments T6–7, T9–10; the third was modified short segment with a pair of vertebral body screws on T7 and T9 added on the basis of short segment fixation. The motions of each model in standing state were simulated in software. The range of motion (ROM) and internal fixation stress changes were analyzed. RESULTS: When anterior support was effective, the three fixation methods could effectively maintain the stability of the spine. However, when anterior support failed, the ROM of the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group in the flexion-extension directions was significantly higher than that of when the anterior support existed, while the modified short segment fixation group had no significant changes. Meanwhile, the stress of internal fixation in the long segment fixation group and the short segment fixation group were greatly increased. However, there were no significant changes in modified short segment fixation group. CONCLUSION: After TES, the presence of the thoracic cage gives partial anterior stabilization. When the anterior support failed, the modified short segment fixation method can provide better stability. BioMed Central 2020-08-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7422552/ /pubmed/32787876 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis 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/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Liang, Yun
Cao, Yuanwu
Gong, Zhiguo
Jiang, Chang
Jin, Lixia
Li, Zheng
Chen, Zixian
Jiang, Chun
Jiang, Xiaoxing
A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy
title A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy
title_full A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy
title_fullStr A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy
title_full_unstemmed A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy
title_short A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy
title_sort finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7422552/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32787876
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01833-0
work_keys_str_mv AT liangyun afiniteelementanalysisoncomparingthestabilityofdifferentposteriorfixationmethodsforthoracictotalenblocspondylectomy
AT caoyuanwu afiniteelementanalysisoncomparingthestabilityofdifferentposteriorfixationmethodsforthoracictotalenblocspondylectomy
AT gongzhiguo afiniteelementanalysisoncomparingthestabilityofdifferentposteriorfixationmethodsforthoracictotalenblocspondylectomy
AT jiangchang afiniteelementanalysisoncomparingthestabilityofdifferentposteriorfixationmethodsforthoracictotalenblocspondylectomy
AT jinlixia afiniteelementanalysisoncomparingthestabilityofdifferentposteriorfixationmethodsforthoracictotalenblocspondylectomy
AT lizheng afiniteelementanalysisoncomparingthestabilityofdifferentposteriorfixationmethodsforthoracictotalenblocspondylectomy
AT chenzixian afiniteelementanalysisoncomparingthestabilityofdifferentposteriorfixationmethodsforthoracictotalenblocspondylectomy
AT jiangchun afiniteelementanalysisoncomparingthestabilityofdifferentposteriorfixationmethodsforthoracictotalenblocspondylectomy
AT jiangxiaoxing afiniteelementanalysisoncomparingthestabilityofdifferentposteriorfixationmethodsforthoracictotalenblocspondylectomy
AT liangyun finiteelementanalysisoncomparingthestabilityofdifferentposteriorfixationmethodsforthoracictotalenblocspondylectomy
AT caoyuanwu finiteelementanalysisoncomparingthestabilityofdifferentposteriorfixationmethodsforthoracictotalenblocspondylectomy
AT gongzhiguo finiteelementanalysisoncomparingthestabilityofdifferentposteriorfixationmethodsforthoracictotalenblocspondylectomy
AT jiangchang finiteelementanalysisoncomparingthestabilityofdifferentposteriorfixationmethodsforthoracictotalenblocspondylectomy
AT jinlixia finiteelementanalysisoncomparingthestabilityofdifferentposteriorfixationmethodsforthoracictotalenblocspondylectomy
AT lizheng finiteelementanalysisoncomparingthestabilityofdifferentposteriorfixationmethodsforthoracictotalenblocspondylectomy
AT chenzixian finiteelementanalysisoncomparingthestabilityofdifferentposteriorfixationmethodsforthoracictotalenblocspondylectomy
AT jiangchun finiteelementanalysisoncomparingthestabilityofdifferentposteriorfixationmethodsforthoracictotalenblocspondylectomy
AT jiangxiaoxing finiteelementanalysisoncomparingthestabilityofdifferentposteriorfixationmethodsforthoracictotalenblocspondylectomy