Computational comparison of three different cage porosities in posterior lumbar interbody fusion with porous cage

被引:12
|
作者
Chen, Yen-Nien [1 ]
Chang, Chih-Wei [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Asia Univ, Dept Phys Therapy, Taichung, Taiwan
[2] Natl Cheng Kung Univ, Coll Med, Dept Orthoped, Tainan, Taiwan
[3] Natl Cheng Kung Univ, Coll Med, Natl Cheng Kung Univ Hosp, Dept Orthoped, Tainan, Taiwan
关键词
Porous cage; Different porosity; Bone fusion; Finite element simulation; BIOMECHANICAL PROPERTIES; BONE-FORMATION; DISC; SUBSIDENCE; STRESSES; SURGERY;
D O I
10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.105036
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Porous interbody cages, manufactured using additive laser melting technology, have recently been used in lumbar fusion surgery. The major advantage of a porous cage is the presence of space inside the cage for bone ingrowth. However, the biomechanical effects of different porosities on the lumbar segment with and without bone fusion (ingrowth) are still unclear. Hence, the present study aimed to compare the biomechanical responses, including the stress and range of motion (ROM) of the lumbar L3-L4 segments with three different types of porous cages along with a posterior instrument (PI) with and without bone fusion using computer simulation. A lumbar L3-L4 segment model with a PI and porous cages was used in this study. Three different porosities, namely 12.5, 41.2, and 80.84% were used. The diameter of the pores of the porous cage was uniformly set to 0.5 mm. In addition, a traditional PEEK cage was used in this study. Two different bone statuses, with and without bone fusion (ingrowth into the pores of the porous cage and the inner space of the PEEK cage), were considered. The results indicated that although the contact pressure on the bone surface reduced, the cage stress increased with increasing cage porosity. Furthermore, cage stress and contact pressure also increased in cases with bone fusion compared with those without bone fusion. The contact pressure on the bone surface with a cage porosity of 80.8% decreased by 40% (from 943.1 to 575.5 MPa), 37.7% (from 133 to 82.9 MPa), 40.4% (from 690.8 to 412 MPa), and 34.2% (from 533 to 351.1 MPa), respectively, for flexion, extension, lateral bending, and rotation, respectively, compared with that with a cage porosity of 12.5%. The rotational ROM of the PEEK cage with bone fusion was clearly larger than those of the porous cages. Porous cages have recently become popular owing to improved manufacturing technology. This study provides scientific data on the strength and weakness of porous cages with different porosities for clinical use.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Is one cage enough in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: A comparison of unilateral single cage interbody fusion to bilateral cages
    Fogel, Guy R.
    Toohey, John S.
    Neidre, Arvo
    Brantigan, John W.
    JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES, 2007, 20 (01): : 60 - 65
  • [2] The Ray threaded fusion cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion
    Onesti, ST
    Ashkenazi, E
    NEUROSURGERY, 1998, 42 (01) : 200 - 204
  • [3] The Ray threaded fusion cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion
    Hacker, RJ
    NEUROSURGERY, 1998, 43 (04) : 982 - 983
  • [4] Intraoperative antepulsion of a posterior lumbar interbody fusion cage: three case reports
    Ceylan, Davut
    Yaldiz, Can
    Asil, Kiyasettin
    Kacira, Tibet
    Tatarli, Necati
    Can, Aytac
    PAN AFRICAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2015, 20
  • [5] Comparison of the PEEK cage and an autologous cage made from the lumbar spinous process and laminae in posterior lumbar interbody fusion
    Bin Lin
    Hui Yu
    Zhida Chen
    Zhuanzhi Huang
    Wenbin Zhang
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 17
  • [6] Comparison of the PEEK cage and an autologous cage made from the lumbar spinous process and laminae in posterior lumbar interbody fusion
    Lin, Bin
    Yu, Hui
    Chen, Zhida
    Huang, Zhuanzhi
    Zhang, Wenbin
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2016, 17
  • [7] Posterior lumbar interbody fusion - A biomechanical comparison, including a new threaded cage
    Brodke, DS
    Dick, JC
    Kunz, DN
    McCabe, R
    Zdeblick, TA
    SPINE, 1997, 22 (01) : 26 - 31
  • [8] The influence of cage positioning and cage type on cage migration and fusion rates in patients with monosegmental posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior fixation
    Alexander Abbushi
    Mario Čabraja
    Ulrich-Wilhelm Thomale
    Christian Woiciechowsky
    Stefan Nikolaus Kroppenstedt
    European Spine Journal, 2009, 18 : 1621 - 1628
  • [9] The influence of cage positioning and cage type on cage migration and fusion rates in patients with monosegmental posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior fixation
    Abbushi, Alexander
    Cabraja, Mario
    Thomale, Ulrich-Wilhelm
    Woiciechowsky, Christian
    Kroppenstedt, Stefan Nikolaus
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2009, 18 (11) : 1621 - 1628
  • [10] The ray threaded fusion cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion - Comments
    Rich, CC
    McCormick, PC
    NEUROSURGERY, 1998, 42 (01) : 204 - 205