Background Little is known about the biomechanical performance of different internal fixations in oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). Here, finite element (FE) analysis was used to describe the biomechanics of various internal fixations and compare and explore the stability of each fixation. Methods CT scans of a patient with lumbar degenerative disease were performed, and the l3-S1 model was constructed using relevant software. The other five FE models were constructed by simulating the model operation and adding different related implants, including (1) an intact model, (2) a stand-alone (SA) model with no instrument, (3) a unilateral pedicle screw model (UPS), (4) a unilateral pedicle screw contralateral translaminar facet screw model (UPS-CTFS), (5) a bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) model, and (6) a cortical bone trajectory screw model (CBT). Various motion loads were set by FE software to simulate lumbar vertebral activity. The software was also used to extract the range of motion (ROM) of the surgical segment, CAGE and fixation stress in the different models. Results The SA group had the greatest ROM and CAGE stress. The ROM of the BPS and UPS-CTFS was not significantly different among motion loadings. Compared with the other three models, the BPS model had lower internal fixation stress among loading conditions, and the CBT screw internal fixation had the highest stress among loads. Conclusions The BPS model provided the best biomechanical stability for OLIF. The SA model was relatively less stable. The UPS-CTFS group had reduced ROM in the fusion segments, but the stresses on the internal fixation and CAGE were relatively higher in the than in the BPS group; the CBT group had a lower flexion and extension ROM and higher rotation and lateral flexion ROM than the BPS group. The stability of the CBT group was poorer than that of the BPS and LPS-CTFS groups. The CAGE and internal fixation stress was greater in the CBT group.

Little is known about the biomechanical performance of various internal fixations in oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). In this study, finite element (FE) analysis was used to describe the biomechanical findings of various different internal fixations to compare and explore the stability of each fixation.METHODS: Six validated FE models of the L3-S1 segment were reconstructed from computed tomography images, including (1) an intact model, (2)a stand-alone (SA) model with no instrument (3) a unilateral pedicle screw model (UPS), (4) a unilateral pedicle screw contralateral translaminar facet screw model (UPS-CTLFS), (5) a bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) model, and (6) a cortical bone trajectory screw (CBT).Three-dimensional model was performed by computed tomography data, and 150N static force and 10N.m moments in different directions were applied to the models to analyze the validation of the models in comparison with previous studies. Models of the OLIF cage was created with three-dimensional scanning to improve the accuracy of the FE analysis. Range of motion (ROM) of the surgical segment stresses, stress of the cage, and stress of fixation were evaluated in the different models.RESULTS:ROM increased from least to greatest as follows: BPS, UPS-CTFS, CBT, UPS, SA. The SA group had the greatest ROM and the SA group had the greatest ROM and stresses on the CAGE. The ROM of the BPS and UPS-CTFS was not significantly different for all motion loadings. Compared with the other three models, the BPS model had lower stresses in internal fixation for all loading conditions and the CBT screw internal fixation had the highest stresses for different loads Compared with the other groups.CONCLUSIONSThe BPS model provided the best biomechanical stability for OLIF. The SA model was relatively less stable. The UPS-CFTS group reduced the ROM of the fusion segments, but the stresses on the internal fixation and CAGE were relatively higher in the UPS-CFTS Compared with the BPS group; and the CBT group had lower ROM in flexion and extension Compared with the BPS, but its ROM in rotation and lateral flexion was relatively higher. The stability of the CBT was poorer than that of the BPS and LPS-CTFS groups. The stress on the CAGE and internal fixation was greater in the CBT group.