No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Lumbar spinal fusion may cause adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) in the long term. Recently, inserting an interspinous process device (IPD) proximal to the fusion has been proposed to prevent ASD. The aim of this study was to investigate the biomechanics of lumbar fusion with proximal IPD implantation (LFPI) under both static loads and whole body vibration (WBV). A previously validated finite element (FE) model of the L1‐5 lumbar spine was modified to simulate L4‐5 fusion. Three different IPDs (Coflex‐F, Wallis and DIAM) were inserted at the L3‐4 segment of the fusion model to construct the LFPI models. The intact and surgical FE models were analyzed under static loads and WBV, respectively. Under static loading conditions, LFPI decreased range of motion (ROM) and intradiscal pressure (IDP) at the transition segment L3‐4 compared with the fusion case. At the segment (L2‐3) adjacent to the transition level, LFPI induced higher motion and IDP than rigid fusion. Under WBV, vibration amplitudes of the L3‐4 IDP and L4‐5 facet joint force (FJF) decreased by more than 54.3% after surgery. The LFPI model with the DIAM system offered the most comparable biomechanics to the intact model under static loads, and decreased the dynamic responses of the L4‐5 FJF under WBV. The LFPI model with the Wallis and Coflex‐F systems could stabilize the transition segment, and decrease dynamic responses of the L3‐4 IDP. The DIAM system may be more suitable in LFPI.

No abstract

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.

Porous titanium interbody scaffolds are growing in popularity due to their appealing advantages for bone ingrowth. This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical effects of scaffold materials in both normal and osteoporotic lumbar spines using a finite element (FE) model. Four scaffold materials were compared: Ti6Al4V (Ti), PEEK, porous titanium of 65% porosity (P65), and porous titanium of 80% porosity (P80). In addition, the range of motion (ROM), endplate stress, scaffold stress, and pedicle screw stress were calculated and compared. The results showed that the ROM decreased by more than 96% after surgery, and the solid Ti scaffold provided the lowest ROM (1.2–3.4% of the intact case) at the surgical segment among all models. Compared to solid Ti, PEEK decreased the scaffold stress by 53–66 and the endplate stress by 0–33%, while porous Ti decreased the scaffold stress by 20–32% and the endplate stress by 0–32%. Further, compared with P65, P80 slightly increased the ROM (<0.03°) and pedicle screw stress (<4%) and decreased the endplate stress by 0–13% and scaffold stress by approximately 18%. Moreover, the osteoporotic lumbar spine provided higher ROMs, endplate stresses, scaffold stresses, and pedicle screw stresses in all motion modes. The porous Ti scaffolds may offer an alternative for lateral lumbar interbody fusion.