Cargando…
Computational comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion with various supplementary fixation systems: a finite element analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) have shown a great surgical potential, while it has always been controversial which surgical approach and which type of fixation system should be selected. This study investigated the biomech...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9806898/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36593501 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03480-z |
_version_ | 1784862611143131136 |
---|---|
author | Ouyang, Pengrong Tan, Qinghua He, Xijing Zhao, Bo |
author_facet | Ouyang, Pengrong Tan, Qinghua He, Xijing Zhao, Bo |
author_sort | Ouyang, Pengrong |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) have shown a great surgical potential, while it has always been controversial which surgical approach and which type of fixation system should be selected. This study investigated the biomechanical response of ALIF and OLIF with various supplementary fixation systems using the finite element method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lumbar L4–L5 ALIF and OLIF models stabilized by different supplementary fixation systems (stand-alone cage, integrated stand-alone cage, anterior plate, and bilateral pedicle screw) were developed to assess the segmental range of motion (ROM), endplate stress (EPS), and screw-bone interface stress (SBIS). EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS: ALIF showed lower ROM and EPS than OLIF in all motion planes and less SBIS in the most of motion planes compared with OLIF when the anterior plate or pedicle screw was used. ALIF induced higher ROM, while lower EPS and SBIS than OLIF in the majority of motion planes when integrated stand-alone cage was utilized. Using a stand-alone cage in ALIF and OLIF led to cage migration. Integrated stand-alone cage prevented the cage migration, whereas caused significantly larger ROM, EPS, and SBIS than other fixation systems except for the rotation plane. In the most of motion planes, the pedicle screw had the lowest ROM, EPS, and SBIS. The anterior plate induced a slightly larger ROM, EPS, and SBIS than the pedicle screw, while the differences were not significant. CONCLUSION: ALIF exhibited a better performance in postoperative segmental stability, endplate stress, and screw-bone interface stress than OLIF when the anterior plate or the pedicle screw was used. The pedicle screw could provide the greatest postoperative segmental stability, less cage subsidence incidence, and lower risk of fixation system loosening in ALIF and OLIF. The anterior plate could also contribute to the stability required and fewer complications, while not as effectively as the pedicle screw. Extreme caution should be regarded when the stand-alone cage is used due to the risk of cage migration. The integrated stand-alone cage may be an alternative method; however, further optimization is needed to reduce complications and improve postoperative segmental stability. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9806898 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98068982023-01-03 Computational comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion with various supplementary fixation systems: a finite element analysis Ouyang, Pengrong Tan, Qinghua He, Xijing Zhao, Bo J Orthop Surg Res Research Article BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) have shown a great surgical potential, while it has always been controversial which surgical approach and which type of fixation system should be selected. This study investigated the biomechanical response of ALIF and OLIF with various supplementary fixation systems using the finite element method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lumbar L4–L5 ALIF and OLIF models stabilized by different supplementary fixation systems (stand-alone cage, integrated stand-alone cage, anterior plate, and bilateral pedicle screw) were developed to assess the segmental range of motion (ROM), endplate stress (EPS), and screw-bone interface stress (SBIS). EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS: ALIF showed lower ROM and EPS than OLIF in all motion planes and less SBIS in the most of motion planes compared with OLIF when the anterior plate or pedicle screw was used. ALIF induced higher ROM, while lower EPS and SBIS than OLIF in the majority of motion planes when integrated stand-alone cage was utilized. Using a stand-alone cage in ALIF and OLIF led to cage migration. Integrated stand-alone cage prevented the cage migration, whereas caused significantly larger ROM, EPS, and SBIS than other fixation systems except for the rotation plane. In the most of motion planes, the pedicle screw had the lowest ROM, EPS, and SBIS. The anterior plate induced a slightly larger ROM, EPS, and SBIS than the pedicle screw, while the differences were not significant. CONCLUSION: ALIF exhibited a better performance in postoperative segmental stability, endplate stress, and screw-bone interface stress than OLIF when the anterior plate or the pedicle screw was used. The pedicle screw could provide the greatest postoperative segmental stability, less cage subsidence incidence, and lower risk of fixation system loosening in ALIF and OLIF. The anterior plate could also contribute to the stability required and fewer complications, while not as effectively as the pedicle screw. Extreme caution should be regarded when the stand-alone cage is used due to the risk of cage migration. The integrated stand-alone cage may be an alternative method; however, further optimization is needed to reduce complications and improve postoperative segmental stability. BioMed Central 2023-01-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9806898/ /pubmed/36593501 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03480-z Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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 Ouyang, Pengrong Tan, Qinghua He, Xijing Zhao, Bo Computational comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion with various supplementary fixation systems: a finite element analysis |
title | Computational comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion with various supplementary fixation systems: a finite element analysis |
title_full | Computational comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion with various supplementary fixation systems: a finite element analysis |
title_fullStr | Computational comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion with various supplementary fixation systems: a finite element analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Computational comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion with various supplementary fixation systems: a finite element analysis |
title_short | Computational comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion with various supplementary fixation systems: a finite element analysis |
title_sort | computational comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion with various supplementary fixation systems: a finite element analysis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9806898/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36593501 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03480-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ouyangpengrong computationalcomparisonofanteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionandobliquelumbarinterbodyfusionwithvarioussupplementaryfixationsystemsafiniteelementanalysis AT tanqinghua computationalcomparisonofanteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionandobliquelumbarinterbodyfusionwithvarioussupplementaryfixationsystemsafiniteelementanalysis AT hexijing computationalcomparisonofanteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionandobliquelumbarinterbodyfusionwithvarioussupplementaryfixationsystemsafiniteelementanalysis AT zhaobo computationalcomparisonofanteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionandobliquelumbarinterbodyfusionwithvarioussupplementaryfixationsystemsafiniteelementanalysis |