Effect of Interbody Implants on the Biomechanical Behavior of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Study

被引:2
|
作者
Shen, Hangkai [1 ]
Zhu, Jia [2 ]
Huang, Chenhui [1 ]
Xiang, Dingding [3 ,4 ]
Liu, Weiqiang [2 ,4 ]
机构
[1] China United Engn Corp, Hangzhou 310000, Peoples R China
[2] Tsinghua Univ, Tsinghua Shenzhen Int Grad Sch, Shenzhen 518055, Peoples R China
[3] Northeastern Univ, Sch Mech Engn & Automation, Shenyang 110057, Peoples R China
[4] Tsinghua Univ, State Key Lab Tribol Adv Equipment, Beijing 100084, Peoples R China
基金
中国博士后科学基金;
关键词
finite element; porous scaffold; lumbar interbody fusion; osteoporosis; endplate stress; VIBRATION CHARACTERISTICS; OSTEOPOROSIS; CAGES; SPINE; LOAD;
D O I
10.3390/jfb14020113
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
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 degrees) 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.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Biomechanical comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion: stand-alone interbody cage versus interbody cage with pedicle screw fixation - a finite element analysis
    Kyung-Chul Choi
    Kyeong-Sik Ryu
    Sang-Ho Lee
    Yeong Hyeon Kim
    Sung Jae Lee
    Chun-Kun Park
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 14
  • [42] Biomechanical comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion: stand-alone interbody cage versus interbody cage with pedicle screw fixation - a finite element analysis
    Choi, Kyung-Chul
    Ryu, Kyeong-Sik
    Lee, Sang-Ho
    Kim, Yeong Hyeon
    Lee, Sung Jae
    Park, Chun-Kun
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2013, 14
  • [43] Biomechanical study of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) augmented with different types of instrumentation: a finite element analysis
    Xin-Yi Cai
    Han-Ming Bian
    Chao Chen
    Xin-Long Ma
    Qiang Yang
    Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 17
  • [44] Biomechanical study of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) augmented with different types of instrumentation: a finite element analysis
    Cai, Xin-Yi
    Bian, Han-Ming
    Chen, Chao
    Ma, Xin-Long
    Yang, Qiang
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH, 2022, 17 (01)
  • [45] Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Which One in Which Patient?
    Dada, Abraham
    Liles, Campbell
    Kanter, Adam S.
    Alan, Nima
    NEUROSURGERY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2025, 36 (01) : 1 - 10
  • [46] Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Finite Element Analysis of the Vibration Characteristics of Fused Lumbar Spine
    Fan, Wei
    Guo, Li-Xin
    Zhao, Dan
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2021, 150 : E81 - E88
  • [47] Finite Element Modeling for Biomechanical Comparisons of Multilevel Transforaminal, Posterior, and Lateral Lumbar Approaches to Interbody Fusion Augmented with Posterior Instrumentation
    Shimooki, Yutaro
    Murakami, Hideki
    Nishida, Norihiro
    Yan, Hirotaka
    Oikawa, Ryo
    Hirooki, Endo
    Yamabe, Daisuke
    Chiba, Yusuke
    Sakai, Takashi
    Doita, Minoru
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2024, 182 : E463 - E470
  • [48] A biomechanical investigation of lumbar interbody fusion techniques
    Umale, Sagar
    Yoganandan, Narayan
    Baisden, Jamie L.
    Choi, Hoon
    Kurpad, Shekar N.
    JOURNAL OF THE MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS, 2022, 125
  • [49] Effect of Lumbar Lordosis on the Adjacent Segment in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Analysis
    Zhao, Xin
    Du, Lin
    Xie, Youzhuan
    Zhao, Jie
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2018, 114 : E114 - E120
  • [50] Mechanical testing of implants for lumbar interbody fusion
    Bader, RJ
    Steinhauser, E
    Rechl, H
    Mittelmeier, W
    Bertagnoli, R
    Gradinger, R
    ORTHOPADE, 2002, 31 (05): : 459 - +