Biomechanical comparison of a new stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion cage with established fixation techniques - A three-dimensional finite element analysis

被引:34
作者
Chen S.-H. [1 ]
Tai C.-L. [2 ]
Lin C.-Y. [3 ]
Hsieh P.-H. [4 ]
Chen W.-P. [3 ]
机构
[1] Department of Orthopaedics, Tzu-Chi General Hospital, Taichung
[2] Graduate Institute of Medical Mechatronics, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan
[3] Department of Biomedical Engineering, Chung Yuan Christian University, Chungli
[4] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan
关键词
Pedicle Screw Fixation; Posterior Fixation; Slip Displacement; Interbody Cage; Functional Spinal Unit;
D O I
10.1186/1471-2474-9-88
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background. Initial promise of a stand-alone interbody fusion cage to treat chronic back pain and restore disc height has not been realized. In some instances, a posterior spinal fixation has been used to enhance stability and increase fusion rate. In this manuscript, a new stand-alone cage is compared with conventional fixation methods based on the finite element analysis, with a focus on investigating cage-bone interface mechanics and stress distribution on the adjacent tissues. Methods. Three trapezoid 8° interbody fusion cage models (dual paralleled cages, a single large cage, or a two-part cage consisting of a trapezoid box and threaded cylinder) were created with or without pedicle screws fixation to investigate the relative importance of the screws on the spinal segmental response. The contact stress on the facet joint, slip displacement of the cage on the endplate, and rotational angle of the upper vertebra were measured under different loading conditions. Results. Simulation results demonstrated less facet stress and slip displacement with the maximal contact on the cage-bone interface. A stand-alone two-part cage had good slip behavior under compression, flexion, extension, lateral bending and torsion, as compared with the other two interbody cages, even with the additional posterior fixation. However, the two-part cage had the lowest rotational angles under flexion and torsion, but had no differences under extension and lateral bending. Conclusion. The biomechanical benefit of a stand-alone two-part fusion cage can be justified. This device provided the stability required for interbody fusion, which supports clinical trials of the cage as an alternative to circumferential fixations. © 2008 Chen et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]
Pavlov P.W., Spruit M., Havinga M., Anderson P.G., Van Limbeek J., Jacobs W.C., Anterior lumbar interbody fusion with threaded fusion cages and autologous bone grafts, Eur Spine J, 9, 3, pp. 224-229, (2000)
[2]
Oxland T.R., Lund T., Biomechanics of stand-alone cages and cages in combination with posterior fixation: A literature review, Eur Spine J, 9, (2000)
[3]
Brantigan J.W., Steffee A.D., Lewis M.L., Quinn L.M., Persenaire J.M., Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: Two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial, Spine, 25, 11, pp. 1437-1446, (2000)
[4]
Kuslich S.D., Danielson G., Dowdle J.D., Sherman J., Fredrickson B., Yuan H., Griffith S.L., Four-year follow-up results of lumbar spine arthrodesis using the Bagby and Kuslich lumbar fusion cage, Spine, 25, 20, pp. 2656-2662, (2000)
[5]
Steffen T., Tsantrizos A., Aebi M., Effect of implant design and endplate preparation on the compressive strength of interbody fusion constructs, Spine, 25, 9, pp. 1077-1084, (2000)
[6]
Oxland T.R., Lund T., Jost B., Cripton P., Lippuner K., Jaeger P., Nolte L.P., The relative importance of vertebral bone density and disc degeneration in spinal flexibility and interbody implant performance, Spine, 21, 22, pp. 2558-2569, (1996)
[7]
Steffen T., Tsantrizos A., Fruth I., Cage: Designs and concepts, Eur Spine J, 9, (2000)
[8]
Kettler A., Wilke H.J., Dietl R., Krammer M., Lumenta C., Claes L., Stabilizing effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages before and after cyclic loading, J Neurosurg, 92, pp. 87-92, (2000)
[9]
Overaker D.W., Langrana N.A., Cuitino A.M., Finite element analysis of vertebral body mechanics with nonlinear microstructural model for the trabecular core, J Biomech Eng, 121, 5, pp. 542-550, (1999)
[10]
Polikeit A., Ferguson S.J., Nolte L.P., Orr T.E., Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: Finite element analysis, Eur Spine J, 12, 4, pp. 413-420, (2003)