Comparative Biomechanical Analysis of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Bilateral Expandable Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages: A Finite Element Analysis Study.

IF 1.7 Q2 SURGERY International Journal of Spine Surgery Pub Date : 2024-08-30 DOI:10.14444/8630
Mohamad Bakhaidar, Balaji Harinathan, Karthik Banurekha Devaraj, Andrew DeGroot, Narayan Yoganandan, Saman Shabani
{"title":"Comparative Biomechanical Analysis of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Bilateral Expandable Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages: A Finite Element Analysis Study.","authors":"Mohamad Bakhaidar, Balaji Harinathan, Karthik Banurekha Devaraj, Andrew DeGroot, Narayan Yoganandan, Saman Shabani","doi":"10.14444/8630","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Expandable transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cages could offer an alternative to anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). Bilateral cage insertion enhances endplate coverage, potentially improving stability and fusion rates and maximizing segmental lordosis. This study aims to compare the biomechanical properties of bilateral expandable TLIF cages to ALIF cages using finite element modeling.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a validated 3-dimensional finite element model of the lumbar spine. ALIF and TLIF cages were created based on available product data. Our focus was on analyzing spinal motion in the sagittal plane, evaluating forces transmitted through the vertebrae, and comparing an ALIF model with various TLIF cage models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The largest TLIF cage model exhibited a 407.9% increase in flexion motion and a 42.1% decrease in extension motion compared with the ALIF cage. The second largest TLIF cages resulted in more flexion motion and less extension motion compared with ALIF, while smaller cages were inferior to ALIF. ALIF cages were associated with increased adjacent segment motion compared with TLIF cages, primarily in extension. Endplate stress analysis revealed higher stress in the ALIF cage model with a more uniform stress distribution.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ALIF cages excel in stabilizing L5 to S1 during flexion, while largest TLIF cages offer superior stability in extension. Large bilateral TLIF cages may provide biomechanical stability comparable to ALIF, especially in extension and could potentially reduce the risk of adjacent segment disease with lower adjacent segment motion.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: 5: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":38486,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Spine Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14444/8630","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Expandable transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cages could offer an alternative to anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). Bilateral cage insertion enhances endplate coverage, potentially improving stability and fusion rates and maximizing segmental lordosis. This study aims to compare the biomechanical properties of bilateral expandable TLIF cages to ALIF cages using finite element modeling.

Methods: We used a validated 3-dimensional finite element model of the lumbar spine. ALIF and TLIF cages were created based on available product data. Our focus was on analyzing spinal motion in the sagittal plane, evaluating forces transmitted through the vertebrae, and comparing an ALIF model with various TLIF cage models.

Results: The largest TLIF cage model exhibited a 407.9% increase in flexion motion and a 42.1% decrease in extension motion compared with the ALIF cage. The second largest TLIF cages resulted in more flexion motion and less extension motion compared with ALIF, while smaller cages were inferior to ALIF. ALIF cages were associated with increased adjacent segment motion compared with TLIF cages, primarily in extension. Endplate stress analysis revealed higher stress in the ALIF cage model with a more uniform stress distribution.

Conclusion: ALIF cages excel in stabilizing L5 to S1 during flexion, while largest TLIF cages offer superior stability in extension. Large bilateral TLIF cages may provide biomechanical stability comparable to ALIF, especially in extension and could potentially reduce the risk of adjacent segment disease with lower adjacent segment motion.

Level of evidence: 5:

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
前路腰椎体间融合器与双侧可扩张经椎间孔腰椎体间融合器固定架的生物力学比较分析:有限元分析研究。
背景:可扩张的经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合器(TLIF)可替代前路腰椎椎体间融合器(ALIF)。双侧插入保持架可增强终板覆盖,从而提高稳定性和融合率,并最大限度地增加节段前凸。本研究旨在通过有限元建模比较双侧可扩张 TLIF 保持架与 ALIF 保持架的生物力学特性:方法:我们使用经过验证的腰椎三维有限元模型。方法:我们使用了经过验证的三维有限元模型,并根据现有产品数据创建了 ALIF 和 TLIF 骨架。我们的重点是分析矢状面上的脊柱运动,评估通过椎骨传递的力,并比较 ALIF 模型和各种 TLIF 保持架模型:结果:最大的 TLIF 保持架模型与 ALIF 保持架相比,屈曲运动增加了 407.9%,伸展运动减少了 42.1%。与 TLIF 保持架相比,ALIF 保持架增加了邻近节段的运动,主要是伸展运动。终板应力分析显示,ALIF固定架模型的应力更高,应力分布更均匀:结论:ALIF 保持架在屈曲时能很好地稳定 L5 至 S1,而最大的 TLIF 保持架在伸展时能提供更好的稳定性。大型双侧 TLIF 保持架可提供与 ALIF 相当的生物力学稳定性,尤其是在伸展时,并有可能通过较低的邻近节段运动降低邻近节段疾病的风险:5:
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
162
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Spine Surgery is the official scientific journal of ISASS, the International Intradiscal Therapy Society, the Pittsburgh Spine Summit, and the Büttner-Janz Spinefoundation, and is an official partner of the Southern Neurosurgical Society. The goal of the International Journal of Spine Surgery is to promote and disseminate online the most up-to-date scientific and clinical research into innovations in motion preservation and new spinal surgery technology, including basic science, biologics, and tissue engineering. The Journal is dedicated to educating spine surgeons worldwide by reporting on the scientific basis, indications, surgical techniques, complications, outcomes, and follow-up data for promising spinal procedures.
期刊最新文献
Biportal Endoscopic Resection of Intradural Meningioma in the Cervical Spine: A Case Report. Efficacy and Safety of Transforaminal Percutaneous Endoscopic Discectomy in Treatment of Patients Suffering From Discogenic Low Back Pain in Kenya. Predictability in Achieving Target Intervertebral Lordosis Using Personalized Interbody Implants. Radiographic Alignment in Deformity Patients Treated With Personalized Interbody Devices: Early Experience From the COMPASS Registry. Advanced Visualization in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: The Ergonomics, Economics, and Evolution of Camera-Based Tubes and Retractors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1