Finite element analysis of a ball-and-socket artificial disc design to suppress excessive loading on facet joints: A comparative study with ProDisc

Biomechanical Evaluation of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Coflex-F and Pedicle Screw Fixation: Finite Element Analysis of Static and Vibration Conditions

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the biomechanics of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with interspinous process device (IPD) or pedicle screw fixation under both static and vibration conditions by the finite element (FE) method.

METHOD

A validated FE model of the L1-5 lumbar spine was used in this study. This FE model derived from computed tomography images of a healthy female adult volunteer of appropriate age. Then the model was modified to simulate L3-4 TLIF. Four conditions were compared: (i) intact; (ii) TLIF combined with bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF); (iii) TLIF combined with U-shaped IPD Coflex-F (CF); and (iv) TLIF combined with unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF). The intact and surgical FE models were analyzed under static and vibration loading conditions respectively. For static loading conditions, four motion modes (flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation) were simulated. For vibration loading conditions, the dynamic responses of lumbar spine under sinusoidal vertical load were simulated.

RESULT

Under static loading conditions, compared with intact case, BPSF decreased range of motion (ROM) by 92%, 95%, 89% and 92% in flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation, respectively. While CF decreased ROM by 87%, 90%, 69% and 80%, and UPSF decreased ROM by 84%, 89%, 66% and 82%, respectively. Compared with CF, UPSF increased the endplate stress by 5%-8% in flexion, 7%-10% in extension, 2%-4% in lateral bending, and decreased the endplate stress by 16%-19% in axial rotation. Compared with CF, UPSF increased the cage stress by 9% in flexion, 10% in extension, and decreased the cage stress by 3% in lateral bending, and 13% in axial rotation. BPSF decreased the stress responses of endplates and cage compared with CF and UPSF. Compared BPSF, CF decreased the facet joint force (FJF) by 6%-13%, and UPSF decreased the FJF by 4%-12%. During vibration loading conditions, compared with BPSF, CF reduced maximum values of the FJF by 16%-32%, and vibration amplitudes by 22%-35%, while UPSF reduced maximum values by 20%-40%, and vibration amplitudes by 31%-45%.

CONCLUSION

Compared with other surgical models, BPSF increased the stability of lumbar spine, and also showed advantages in cage stress and endplate stress. CF showed advantages in IDP and FJF especially during vertical vibration, which may lead to lower risk of adjacent segment degeneration. CF may be an effective alternative to pedicle screw fixation in TLIF procedures.

Revision Surgery of Total Lumbar Disk Replacement: Review of 48 Cases

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective clinical review.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to analyze failure mechanisms after total lumbar disk replacement (TDR) and surgical revision strategies in patients with recurrent low back pain (LBP).

SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND DATA

Several reports indicate that TDR revision surgery carries a major risk and that it should not be recommended. The clinical results of posterior instrumented fusion using the prosthesis like an interbody cage have not been well analyzed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 2003 to 2018, 48 patients with recurrent LBP after TDR underwent revision surgery. The average age was 39 years (24-61 y). The mean follow-up was 100.4 months (24.6-207.7 mo). Clinical data, self-assessment of patient satisfaction, and Oswestry Disability Index collected at each clinical control or by phone call for the older files and radiologic assessments were reviewed. The surgical revision strategy included posterior fusion in 41 patients (group A) and TDR removal and anterior fusion in 7 patients (group B), of which 6 patients had an additional posterior fixation.

RESULTS

Facet joint osteoarthritis was associated with TDR failure in 85%. In 68% the position of the prosthesis was suboptimal. Range of motion was preserved in 25%, limited in extension in 65%, and limited in flexion in 40%. Limited range of motion and facet joint osteoarthritis were significantly related (P=0.0008). The complication rate in group B was 43% including iliac vein laceration. Preoperative and 2-year follow-up Oswestry Disability Index were 25.5 and 22.0, respectively, in group A versus 27.9 and 21.3 in group B.

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior osteoarthritis was the principal cause of recurrent LBP in failed TDR. The anterior approach for revision carried a major vascular risk, whereas a simple posterior instrumented fusion leads to the same clinical results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Meta-analyses comparing spine simulators with cadavers and finite element models by analysing range-of-motion data before and after lumbar total disc replacement

•

Data from two different in vitro test methods for the same evaluation subjects were compared. It was investigated whether spine simulators with real human cadavers (SSCs) and finite element models (FEMs) provide the same data exemplarily for range of motion (ROM) before and after insertion of motion-retaining devices.

•

Only fifty-nine percent of SSC meta-analyses show restored ROM after insertion of the device compared to the intact spinal segment. In FEM meta-analyses, ROM is restored in ninety percent.

•

Ten percent of ROM analyses show significantly different data between SSCs and FEMs.

•

With regard to the included studies, data generated by SSCs and FEMs cannot be used unrestricted as alternative and complementary data.

•

Our analysis provides a new approach to compare data from associated test methods.

Background

Range-of-motion (ROM) data generated by the in vitro test methods of spine simulators with cadavers (SSCs) and finite element models (FEMs) are used alternatively and complementarily for in vitro evaluations.

Aim of Review

Our purpose is to compare exemplary segmental ROM data from SSCs and FEMs before and after ball-and-socket total disc replacement (bsTDR) to determine whether the two test methods provide the same data for the same evaluation subjects.

Key Scientific Concepts of Review

We performed 70 meta-analyses (MAs) and 20 additional comparative analyses based on data from 21 SSC studies used for 39 MAs and 16 FEM studies used for 31 MAs. Only fifty-nine percent (n = 23/39) of SSC MAs show a restored ROM after bsTDR, whereas in FEM MAs, the ROM is restored in ninety percent (n = 28/31). Among the analyses comparing data from the same spinal segments, motion directions and bsTDR, SSC and FEM data are significantly different in ten percent (n = 2/20). According to our results, data generated by SSCs and FEMs cannot be used as alternative and complementary data without restriction. The quality of the evaluation methods itself as well as potential technical reasons for the discrepant results were not our evaluation target. Further SSC and FEM data should be compared using the same approach.