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
  • [31] Prospective Study of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Either Interbody Graft or Interbody Cage in the Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis
    Sivaraman, A.
    Altaf, Farhaan
    Jalgaonkar, Azal
    Kakkar, Rahul
    Sirigiri, P. B. R.
    Howieson, A.
    Crawford, Robert J.
    JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES, 2015, 28 (08): : E467 - E471
  • [32] Bullet Cage Versus Crescent Cage Design in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Wanderman, Nathan
    Sebastian, Arjun
    Fredericks, Donald R., Jr.
    Slaven, Sean E.
    Helgeson, Melvin D.
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2020, 33 (02): : 47 - 49
  • [33] Finite Element Analysis of Instrumented Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages for Reducing Stress Shielding Effects: Comparison of the CFRP cage and Titanium cage
    Kang, Kyung-Tak
    Chun, Heoung-Jae
    Kim, Ho-Joong
    Yeom, Jin-S.
    Park, Kyoung-Mi
    Hwang, In-Han
    Lee, Kwang-Ill
    COMPOSITES RESEARCH, 2012, 25 (04): : 98 - 104
  • [34] Subsidence of Metal Interbody Cage After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Pedicle Screw Fixation Reply
    Tokuhashi, Yasuaki
    ORTHOPEDICS, 2010, 33 (04) : 227 - 228
  • [35] Cage positioning as a risk factor for posterior cage migration following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion – an analysis of 953 cases
    Yung-Hsueh Hu
    Chi-Chien Niu
    Ming-Kai Hsieh
    Tsung-Ting Tsai
    Wen-Jer Chen
    Po-Liang Lai
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 20
  • [36] Cage positioning as a risk factor for posterior cage migration following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - an analysis of 953 cases
    Hu, Yung-Hsueh
    Niu, Chi-Chien
    Hsieh, Ming-Kai
    Tsai, Tsung-Ting
    Chen, Wen-Jer
    Lai, Po-Liang
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2019, 20 (1)
  • [37] Definition of cage subsidence in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) approach and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approach - A systematic review
    Baig, Rehman Ali
    Quiceno, Esteban
    Soliman, Mohamed A. R.
    Aguirre, Alexander O.
    Okai, Bernard K.
    Kuo, Cathleen C.
    Francois, Hendrick B.
    Stockman, Isabelle
    Shah, Shashwat
    Levy, Hannon W.
    Khan, Asham
    Rho, Kyungduk
    Pollina, John
    Mullin, Jeffrey P.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2025, 133
  • [38] Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using posterolateral placement of a single cylindrical threaded cage
    Zhao, J
    Hai, Y
    Ordway, NR
    Park, CK
    Yuan, HA
    SPINE, 2000, 25 (04) : 425 - 430
  • [39] Cage migration in spondylolisthesis treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion using BAK cages
    Chen, L
    Yang, HL
    Tang, TS
    SPINE, 2005, 30 (19) : 2171 - 2175
  • [40] Double-level isthmic spondylolisthesis treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cage
    Song, DeWei
    Tang, Ming
    Li, CanHui
    Song, DeYong
    Wang, ChangBing
    Xuan, TianHang
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2020, 34 (02) : 210 - 214