Comparison of Load-Sharing Responses Between Graded Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy and Conventional Fusion Using Finite Element Modeling.

Narayan Yoganandan, Hoon Choi, Yuvaraj Purushothaman, Aditya Vedantam, Balaji Harinathan, Anjishnu Banerjee
{"title":"Comparison of Load-Sharing Responses Between Graded Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy and Conventional Fusion Using Finite Element Modeling.","authors":"Narayan Yoganandan, Hoon Choi, Yuvaraj Purushothaman, Aditya Vedantam, Balaji Harinathan, Anjishnu Banerjee","doi":"10.1115/1.4063465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Following the diagnosis of unilateral cervical radiculopathy and need for surgical intervention, anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (conventional fusion) and posterior cervical foraminotomy are common options. Although patient outcomes may be similar between the two procedures, their biomechanical effects have not been fully compared using a head-to-head approach, particularly, in relation to the amount of facet resection and internal load-sharing between spinal segments and components. The objective of this investigation was to compare load-sharing between conventional fusion and graded foraminotomy facet resections under physiological loading. A validated finite element model of the cervical spinal column was used in the study. The intact spine was modified to simulate the two procedures at the C5-C6 spinal segment. Flexion, extension, and lateral bending loads were applied to the intact, graded foraminotomy, and conventional fusion spines. Load-sharing was determined using range of motion data at the C5-C6 and immediate adjacent segments, facet loads at the three segments, and disk pressures at the adjacent segments. Results were normalized with respect to the intact spine to compare surgical options. Conventional fusion leads to increased motion, pressure, and facet loads at adjacent segments. Foraminotomy leads to increased motion and anterior loading at the index level, and motions decrease at adjacent levels. In extension, the left facet load decreases after foraminotomy. Recognizing that foraminotomy is a motion preserving alternative to conventional fusion, this study highlights various intrinsic biomechanical factors and potential instability issues with more than one-half facet resection.</p>","PeriodicalId":73734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of engineering and science in medical diagnostics and therapy","volume":"7 2","pages":"021006"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10583278/pdf/jesmdt-23-1042_021006.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of engineering and science in medical diagnostics and therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4063465","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Following the diagnosis of unilateral cervical radiculopathy and need for surgical intervention, anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (conventional fusion) and posterior cervical foraminotomy are common options. Although patient outcomes may be similar between the two procedures, their biomechanical effects have not been fully compared using a head-to-head approach, particularly, in relation to the amount of facet resection and internal load-sharing between spinal segments and components. The objective of this investigation was to compare load-sharing between conventional fusion and graded foraminotomy facet resections under physiological loading. A validated finite element model of the cervical spinal column was used in the study. The intact spine was modified to simulate the two procedures at the C5-C6 spinal segment. Flexion, extension, and lateral bending loads were applied to the intact, graded foraminotomy, and conventional fusion spines. Load-sharing was determined using range of motion data at the C5-C6 and immediate adjacent segments, facet loads at the three segments, and disk pressures at the adjacent segments. Results were normalized with respect to the intact spine to compare surgical options. Conventional fusion leads to increased motion, pressure, and facet loads at adjacent segments. Foraminotomy leads to increased motion and anterior loading at the index level, and motions decrease at adjacent levels. In extension, the left facet load decreases after foraminotomy. Recognizing that foraminotomy is a motion preserving alternative to conventional fusion, this study highlights various intrinsic biomechanical factors and potential instability issues with more than one-half facet resection.

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
应用有限元模型比较分级颈后切口和常规融合的负荷分担反应。
在诊断为单侧颈神经根病并需要手术干预后,颈前路椎间盘切除融合术(常规融合术)和颈前路椎间孔切开术是常见的选择。尽管两种手术的患者结果可能相似,但使用头对头方法尚未完全比较其生物力学效果,特别是在小关节切除量以及脊柱节段和部件之间的内部载荷分担方面。本研究的目的是比较生理负荷下常规椎间孔融合术和分级小关节切除术的负荷分担情况。研究中使用了一个经过验证的颈椎有限元模型。对完整的脊柱进行了修改,以模拟C5-C6脊柱节段的两个过程。对完整、分级的椎间孔切开术和常规融合棘施加弯曲、伸展和侧向弯曲载荷。使用C5-C6和紧邻节段的运动范围数据、三个节段的端面载荷以及相邻节段的圆盘压力来确定载荷分担。对完整脊柱的结果进行标准化,以比较手术选择。传统的融合导致相邻节段处的运动、压力和小平面载荷增加。For氨基切开术导致指数水平的运动和前负荷增加,相邻水平的运动减少。在延伸过程中,椎间孔切开术后左小面负荷降低。鉴于椎间孔切开术是传统融合术的一种保留运动的替代方法,本研究强调了超过一半的小关节切除术的各种内在生物力学因素和潜在的不稳定性问题。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
High-Speed Three-Dimensional-Digital Image Correlation and Schlieren Imaging Integrated With Shock Tube Loading for Investigating Dynamic Response of Human Tympanic Membrane Exposed to Blasts. Quantifying the Fascicular Changes in Recovered Achilles Tendon Patients Using Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Tractography. Assistive Technology for Real-Time Fall Prevention during Walking: Evaluation of the Effect of an Intelligent Foot Orthosis A Simple Poc Device for Temperature Control of Multiple Reactions During Recombinase Polymerase Amplification Auxetic Structure Inspired Microneedle Arrays for Minimally Invasive Drug Delivery
×
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