Biomechanical analysis of stand-alone lumbar interbody cages versus 360° constructs: an in vitro and finite element investigation

Stress Distribution of Different Pedicle Screw Insertion Techniques Following Single-Segment TLIF: A Finite Element Analysis Study

OBJECTIVES

At present, a variety of posterior lumbar internal fixation implantation methods have been developed, which makes it difficult for spine surgeons to choose. The stress distribution of the internal fixation system is one of the important indexes to evaluate these technologies. Common insertion technologies include Roy Camille, Magerl, Krag, AO, and Weinstein insertion techniques. This study aimed to compare the distribution of von Mises stresses in different screw fixation systems established by these insertion technologies.

METHODS

Here, the three-dimensional finite element (FE) method was selected to evaluate the postoperative stress distribution of internal fixation. Following different pedicle screw insertion techniques, five single-segment transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) models were established after modeling and validation of the L1-S1 vertebrae FE model.

RESULTS

By analyzing the data, we found that stress concentration phenomenon was in all the models. Additionally, Roy-Camille, Krag, AO, and Weinstein insertion techniques led to the great stress on lumbar vertebra, intervertebral disc, and screw-rod fixation systems. Therefore, we hope that the results can provide ideas for clinical work and development of pedicle screws in the future. It is worth noting that flexion, unaffected side lateral bending, and affected side axial rotation should be limited for the patients with cages implanted.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, our method obtained the results that Magerl insertion technique was the relatively safe approach for pedicle screw implantation due to its relatively dispersive stress in TLIF models.

Instrumentation choice and early radiographic outcome following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF): Lateral instrumentation versus posterior pedicle screw fixation

Background

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a minimally invasive fusion procedure that may be performed with or without supplemental instrumentation. However, there is a paucity of evidence on the effect of supplemental instrumentation technique on perioperative morbidity and fusion rate in LLIF.

Methods

A single-institutional retrospective review of patients who underwent LLIF for lumbar spondylosis was conducted. Patients were grouped according to supplemental instrumentation technique: stand-alone LLIF, LLIF with laterally placed instrumentation, or LLIF with posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF). Outcomes included fusion rates, peri-operative complication, and reoperation; estimated blood loss (EBL); surgery duration; length of stay; and length of follow-up.

Results

82 patients underwent LLIF at 114 levels. 35 patients (42.7%) received supplemental lateral instrumentation, 30 (36.6%) received supplemental PPSF, and 17 (20.7%) underwent stand-alone LLIF. More patients in the lateral instrumentation group had prior lumbar fusion at adjacent levels (23/35, 65.71%) versus stand-alone (3/17, 17.6%) or PPSF (2/30, 6.67%) groups (p = 0.003). 4/17 patients (23.5%) with stand-alone LLIF and 4/35 patients (11.42%) with lateral instrumentation underwent reoperation, versus 0/30 with PPSF (p = 0.030). There was no difference in fusion rates between groups (p = 0.717). Operation duration was longer in patients with PPSF (p < 0.005) and length of follow-up was longer for PPSF than lateral instrumentation (p = 0.001). Choice of instrumentation group was a statistically significant predictor of reoperation.

Conclusions

While rates of complete radiographic fusion on imaging follow-up didn't differ, patients receiving PPSF were less likely than stand-alone or lateral instrumentation groups to require reoperation, though operative time was significantly longer. Further study of choice of supplemental instrumentation with LLIF is indicated.