Cargando…
Biomechanical comparative analysis of effects of dynamic and rigid fusion on lumbar motion with different sagittal parameters: An in vitro study
Background: Although the management of the lumbar disease is highly dependent on the severity of the patient’s condition, optimal surgical techniques to reduce the risk of adjacent degeneration disease (ADS) remain elusive. Based on in vitro biomechanical tests of the cadaver spine, this study aimed...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9437262/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36061438 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.943092 |
_version_ | 1784781552259956736 |
---|---|
author | Wang, Wei Kong, Chao Pan, Fumin Wang, Yu Wu, Xueqing Pei, Baoqing Lu, Shibao |
author_facet | Wang, Wei Kong, Chao Pan, Fumin Wang, Yu Wu, Xueqing Pei, Baoqing Lu, Shibao |
author_sort | Wang, Wei |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: Although the management of the lumbar disease is highly dependent on the severity of the patient’s condition, optimal surgical techniques to reduce the risk of adjacent degeneration disease (ADS) remain elusive. Based on in vitro biomechanical tests of the cadaver spine, this study aimed to comparatively analyze the kinematic responses of the spine with dynamic and rigid fixations (i.e., Coflex fixation and posterolateral fusion) after single-or double-level lumbar fusion in daily activities. Methods: Six human lumbar specimens (L1-S1) were selected for this experiment, and the sagittal parameters of each lumbar specimen were measured in the 3D model. The specimens were successively reconstructed into five groups of models: intact model, single-level L4-5 Coflex fixation model, single-level L4-5 Fusion (posterior pedicle screw fixation) model, double-level L4-5 Coflex + L5-S1 Fusion model; and double-level L4-5 Fusion + L5-S1 Fusion model. The pure moment was applied to the specimen model to simulate physiological activities in daily life through a custom-built robot testing device with an optical tracking system. Results: For single-level lumbar fusion, compared to the traditional Fusion fixation, the Coflex dynamic fixation mainly restricted the extension of L4-L5, partially retained the range of motion (ROM) of the L4-L5 segment, and reduced the motion compensation of the upper adjacent segment. For the double-level lumbar fixation, the ROM of adjacent segments in the Coflex + Fusion was significantly decreased compared to the Fusion + Fusion fixation, but there was no significant difference. In addition, PT was the only sagittal parameter of the preoperative lumbar associated with the ROM under extension loading. The Coflex fixation had little effect on the original sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine. Conclusion: The Coflex was an effective lumbar surgical technique with a less altering kinematic motion of the lumbar both at the index segment and adjacent segments. However, when the Coflex was combined with the fusion fixation, this ability to protect adjacent segments remained elusive in slowing the accelerated degradation of adjacent segments. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9437262 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-94372622022-09-03 Biomechanical comparative analysis of effects of dynamic and rigid fusion on lumbar motion with different sagittal parameters: An in vitro study Wang, Wei Kong, Chao Pan, Fumin Wang, Yu Wu, Xueqing Pei, Baoqing Lu, Shibao Front Bioeng Biotechnol Bioengineering and Biotechnology Background: Although the management of the lumbar disease is highly dependent on the severity of the patient’s condition, optimal surgical techniques to reduce the risk of adjacent degeneration disease (ADS) remain elusive. Based on in vitro biomechanical tests of the cadaver spine, this study aimed to comparatively analyze the kinematic responses of the spine with dynamic and rigid fixations (i.e., Coflex fixation and posterolateral fusion) after single-or double-level lumbar fusion in daily activities. Methods: Six human lumbar specimens (L1-S1) were selected for this experiment, and the sagittal parameters of each lumbar specimen were measured in the 3D model. The specimens were successively reconstructed into five groups of models: intact model, single-level L4-5 Coflex fixation model, single-level L4-5 Fusion (posterior pedicle screw fixation) model, double-level L4-5 Coflex + L5-S1 Fusion model; and double-level L4-5 Fusion + L5-S1 Fusion model. The pure moment was applied to the specimen model to simulate physiological activities in daily life through a custom-built robot testing device with an optical tracking system. Results: For single-level lumbar fusion, compared to the traditional Fusion fixation, the Coflex dynamic fixation mainly restricted the extension of L4-L5, partially retained the range of motion (ROM) of the L4-L5 segment, and reduced the motion compensation of the upper adjacent segment. For the double-level lumbar fixation, the ROM of adjacent segments in the Coflex + Fusion was significantly decreased compared to the Fusion + Fusion fixation, but there was no significant difference. In addition, PT was the only sagittal parameter of the preoperative lumbar associated with the ROM under extension loading. The Coflex fixation had little effect on the original sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine. Conclusion: The Coflex was an effective lumbar surgical technique with a less altering kinematic motion of the lumbar both at the index segment and adjacent segments. However, when the Coflex was combined with the fusion fixation, this ability to protect adjacent segments remained elusive in slowing the accelerated degradation of adjacent segments. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-08-19 /pmc/articles/PMC9437262/ /pubmed/36061438 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.943092 Text en Copyright © 2022 Wang, Kong, Pan, Wang, Wu, Pei and Lu. 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, Wei Kong, Chao Pan, Fumin Wang, Yu Wu, Xueqing Pei, Baoqing Lu, Shibao Biomechanical comparative analysis of effects of dynamic and rigid fusion on lumbar motion with different sagittal parameters: An in vitro study |
title | Biomechanical comparative analysis of effects of dynamic and rigid fusion on lumbar motion with different sagittal parameters: An in vitro study |
title_full | Biomechanical comparative analysis of effects of dynamic and rigid fusion on lumbar motion with different sagittal parameters: An in vitro study |
title_fullStr | Biomechanical comparative analysis of effects of dynamic and rigid fusion on lumbar motion with different sagittal parameters: An in vitro study |
title_full_unstemmed | Biomechanical comparative analysis of effects of dynamic and rigid fusion on lumbar motion with different sagittal parameters: An in vitro study |
title_short | Biomechanical comparative analysis of effects of dynamic and rigid fusion on lumbar motion with different sagittal parameters: An in vitro study |
title_sort | biomechanical comparative analysis of effects of dynamic and rigid fusion on lumbar motion with different sagittal parameters: an in vitro study |
topic | Bioengineering and Biotechnology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9437262/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36061438 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.943092 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wangwei biomechanicalcomparativeanalysisofeffectsofdynamicandrigidfusiononlumbarmotionwithdifferentsagittalparametersaninvitrostudy AT kongchao biomechanicalcomparativeanalysisofeffectsofdynamicandrigidfusiononlumbarmotionwithdifferentsagittalparametersaninvitrostudy AT panfumin biomechanicalcomparativeanalysisofeffectsofdynamicandrigidfusiononlumbarmotionwithdifferentsagittalparametersaninvitrostudy AT wangyu biomechanicalcomparativeanalysisofeffectsofdynamicandrigidfusiononlumbarmotionwithdifferentsagittalparametersaninvitrostudy AT wuxueqing biomechanicalcomparativeanalysisofeffectsofdynamicandrigidfusiononlumbarmotionwithdifferentsagittalparametersaninvitrostudy AT peibaoqing biomechanicalcomparativeanalysisofeffectsofdynamicandrigidfusiononlumbarmotionwithdifferentsagittalparametersaninvitrostudy AT lushibao biomechanicalcomparativeanalysisofeffectsofdynamicandrigidfusiononlumbarmotionwithdifferentsagittalparametersaninvitrostudy |