Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research article

Biomechanical evaluation of strategies for adjacent segment disease after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: is the extension of pedicle screws necessary?

Authors: Ziyang Liang, Jianchao Cui, Jiarui Zhang, Jiahui He, Jingjing Tang, Hui Ren, Linqiang Ye, De Liang, Xiaobing Jiang

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Background

Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is a well-known complication after interbody fusion. Pedicle screw-rod revision possesses sufficient strength and rigidity. However, is a surgical segment with rigid fixation necessary for ASD reoperation? This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical effect of different instrumentation on lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for ASD treatment.

Methods

A validated L2~5 finite element (FE) model was modified for simulation. ASD was considered the level cranial to the upper-instrumented segment (L3/4). Bone graft fusion in LLIF with bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) fixation occurred at L4/5. The ASD segment for each group underwent a) LLIF + posterior extension of BPS, b) PLIF + posterior extension of BPS, c) LLIF + lateral screw, and d) stand-alone LLIF. The L3/4 range of motion (ROM), interbody cage stress and strain, screw-bone interface stress, cage-endplate interface stress, and L2/3 nucleus pulposus of intradiscal pressure (NP-IDP) analysis were calculated for comparisons among the four models.

Results

All reconstructive models displayed decreased motion at L3/4. Under each loading condition, the difference was not significant between models a and b, which provided the maximum ROM reduction (73.8 to 97.7% and 68.3 to 98.4%, respectively). Model c also provided a significant ROM reduction (64.9 to 77.5%). Model d provided a minimal restriction of the ROM (18.3 to 90.1%), which exceeded that of model a by 13.1 times for flexion-extension, 10.3 times for lateral bending and 4.8 times for rotation. Model b generated greater cage stress than other models, particularly for flexion. The maximum displacement of the cage and the peak stress of the cage-endplate interface were found to be the highest in model d under all loading conditions. For the screw-bone interface, the stress was much greater with lateral instrumentation than with posterior instrumentation.

Conclusions

Stand-alone LLIF is likely to have limited stability, particularly for lateral bending and axial rotation. Posterior extension of BPS can provide reliable stability and excellent protective effects on instrumentation and endplates. However, LLIF with the use of an in situ screw may be an alternative for ASD reoperation.

Kalff R, Ewald C, Waschke A, Gobisch L, Hopf C. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis in older people: current treatment options. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2013;110(37):613–23 quiz 624.PubMedPubMedCentral

Hilibrand AS, Robbins M. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J. 2004;4(6 Suppl):190S–4S.PubMedCrossRef

Okuda S, Nagamoto Y, Matsumoto T, Sugiura T, Takahashi Y, Iwasaki M. Adjacent segment disease after single segment posterior lumbar Interbody fusion for degenerative Spondylolisthesis: minimum 10 years follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43(23):E1384–8.CrossRef

Scemama C, Magrino B, Gillet P, Guigui P. Risk of adjacent-segment disease requiring surgery after short lumbar fusion: results of the French spine surgery society series. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;25(1):46–51.PubMedCrossRef

Radcliff KE, Kepler CK, Jakoi A, Sidhu GS, Rihn J, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ, Hilibrand AS. Adjacent segment disease in the lumbar spine following different treatment interventions. Spine J. 2013;13(10):1339–49.PubMedCrossRef

Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE. Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(17):1938–44.CrossRef

Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN, Hsu WK, Dawson EG. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(7):1497–503.PubMedCrossRef

Kyaw TA, Wang Z, Sakakibara T, Yoshikawa T, Inaba T, Kasai Y. Biomechanical effects of pedicle screw fixation on adjacent segments. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014;24(Suppl 1):S283–7.PubMedCrossRef

Ryu DS, Park JY, Kuh SU, Chin DK, Kim KS, Cho YE, Kim KH. Surgical outcomes after segmental limited surgery for adjacent segment disease: the consequences of makeshift surgery. World Neurosurg. 2018;110:e258–65.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Yue ZJ, Liu RY, Lu Y, Dong LL, Li YQ, Lu EB. Middle-period curative effect of posterior lumbar intervertebral fusion (PLIF) and interspinous dynamic fixation (Wallis) for treatment of L45 degenerative disease and its influence on adjacent segment degeneration. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015;19(23):4481–7.PubMed

11.

Djurasovic M, Glassman SD, Howard JM, Copay AG, Carreon LY. Health-related quality of life improvements in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion as a revision surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(4):269–76.CrossRef

12.

Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, Taylor WR. Extreme lateral Interbody fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. 2006;6(4):435–43.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Louie PK, Varthi AG, Narain AS, Lei V, Bohl DD, Shifflett GD, Phillips FM. Stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration following previous lumbar fusion. Spine J. 2018;18(11):2025–32.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Choi YH, Kwon SW, Moon JH, Kim CH, Chung CK, Park SB, Heo W. Lateral lumbar Interbody fusion and in situ screw fixation for rostral adjacent segment stenosis of the lumbar spine. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2017;60(6):755–62.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

15.

Denoziere G, Ku DN. Biomechanical comparison between fusion of two vertebrae and implantation of an artificial intervertebral disc. J Biomech. 2006;39(4):766–75.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Xu H, Ju W, Xu N, Zhang X, Zhu X, Zhu L, Qian X, Wen F, Wu W, Jiang F. Biomechanical comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with 1 or 2 cages by finite-element analysis. Neurosurg. 2013;73(2 Suppl Operative):ons198–205 discussion ons205.

17.

Guo LX, Yin JY. Finite element analysis and design of an interspinous device using topology optimization. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2019;57(1):89–98.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Kurutz M. Oroszváry LJFEAFBAtID: Finite element modeling and simulation of healthy and degenerated human lumbar spine., vol. 193; 2012.

19.

Schmidt H, Heuer F, Simon U, Kettler A, Rohlmann A, Claes L, Wilke HJ. Application of a new calibration method for a three-dimensional finite element model of a human lumbar annulus fibrosus. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006;21(4):337–44.CrossRef

20.

Polikeit A, Ferguson SJ, Nolte LP, Orr TE. Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis. Eur Spine J. 2003;12(4):413–20.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Chen CS, Cheng CK, Liu CL, Lo WH. Stress analysis of the disc adjacent to interbody fusion in lumbar spine. Med Eng Phys. 2001;23(7):483–91.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Zhong ZC, Chen SH, Hung CH. Load- and displacement-controlled finite element analyses on fusion and non-fusion spinal implants. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2009;223(2):143–57.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Yamamoto I, Panjabi MM, Crisco T, Oxland T. Three-dimensional movements of the whole lumbar spine and lumbosacral joint. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989;14(11):1256–60.CrossRef

24.

Xu M, Yang J, Lieberman IH, Haddas R. Lumbar spine finite element model for healthy subjects: development and validation. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2017;20(1):1–15.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Jebaseelan DD, Jebaraj C, Yoganandan N, Rajasekaran S, Kanna RM. Sensitivity studies of pediatric material properties on juvenile lumbar spine responses using finite element analysis. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2012;50(5):515–22.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Fagan MJ, Julian S, Siddall DJ, Mohsen AM. Patient-specific spine models. Part 1: finite element analysis of the lumbar intervertebral disc--a material sensitivity study. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2002;216(5):299–314.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Pianigiani S, Croce D, D'Aiuto M, Pascale W, Innocenti B. Sensitivity analysis of the material properties of different soft-tissues: implications for a subject-specific knee arthroplasty. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2017;7(4):546–57.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Vadapalli S, Sairyo K, Goel V. Biomechanical rationale for using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) spacers for lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element study (vol 31, pg E992, 2006). Spine. 2007;32(6):710.CrossRef

29.

Xu M, Yang J, Lieberman I, Haddas R. Stress distribution in vertebral bone and pedicle screw and screw-bone load transfers among various fixation methods for lumbar spine surgical alignment: a finite element study. Med Eng Phys. 2019;63:26–32.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Vadapalli S, Sairyo K, Goel VK, Robon M, Biyani A, Khandha A, Ebraheim NA. Biomechanical rationale for using Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) spacers for lumbar Interbody fusion–a finite element study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(26):E992–8.CrossRef

31.

Laws CJ, Coughlin DG, Lotz JC, Serhan HA, Hu SS. Direct lateral approach to lumbar fusion is a biomechanically equivalent alternative to the anterior approach an in vitro study. Spine. 2012;37(10):819–25.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Ahmadian A, Bach K, Bolinger B, Malham GM, Okonkwo DO, Kanter AS, Uribe JS. Stand-alone minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion: multicenter clinical outcomes. J Clin Neurosci. 2015;22(4):740–6.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Marchi L, Abdala N, Oliveira L, Amaral R, Coutinho E, LJJoNS P. Radiographic and clinical evaluation of cage subsidence after stand-alone lateral interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(1):110–8.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Murray G. Handbook of materials selection for engineering applications: Taylor & Francis; 1997.CrossRef

35.

Dong XN, Acuna RL, Luo Q, Wang X. Orientation dependence of progressive post-yield behavior of human cortical bone in compression. J Biomech. 2012;45(16):2829–34.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

36.

Currey JD. Tensile yield in compact bone is determined by strain, post-yield behaviour by mineral content. J Biomech. 2004;37(4):549–56.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Shasti M, Koenig SJ, Nash AB, Bahrami S, Jauregui JJ, O'Hara NN, Jazini E, Gelb DE, Ludwig SC. Biomechanical evaluation of lumbar lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of adjacent segment disease. Spine J. 2019;19(3):545–51.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Zhang ZJ, Fogel GR, Liao ZH, Sun YT, Liu WQ. Biomechanical analysis of lateral lumbar Interbody fusion constructs with various fixation options: based on a validated finite element model. World Neurosurgery. 2018;114:E1120–9.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Fogel GR, Parikh RD, Ryu SI, Turner AW. Biomechanics of lateral lumbar interbody fusion constructs with lateral and posterior plate fixation: laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(3):291–7.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Cappuccino A, Cornwall GB, Turner AW, Fogel GR, Duong HT, Kim KD, Brodke DS. Biomechanical analysis and review of lateral lumbar fusion constructs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(26 Suppl):S361–7.CrossRef

41.

Liu XL, Ma J, Park P, Huang XD, Xie N, Ye XJ. Biomechanical comparison of multilevel lateral interbody fusion with and without supplementary instrumentation: a three-dimensional finite element study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18:63.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

42.

Xu H, Tang H, Guan X, Jiang F, Xu N, Ju W, Zhu X, Zhang X, Zhang Q, Li M. Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by finite element analysis. Neurosurg. 2013;72(1 Suppl Operative):21–6.

43.

Bono CM, Lee CK. Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(4):455–63 discussion Z455.CrossRef

44.

Boustani HN, Rohlmann A, van der Put R, Burger A, Zander TJCB. Which postures are most suitable in assessing spinal fusion using radiostereometric analysis? Cin Biomech (Bristol,Avon). 2012;27(2):111–6.CrossRef

45.

Metzger MF, Robinson ST, Maldonado RC, Rawlinson J, Liu J, Acosta FL. Biomechanical analysis of lateral interbody fusion strategies for adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. Spine J. 2017;17(7):1004–11.PubMedCrossRef

46.

Choi J, Shin DA, Kim S. Biomechanical effects of the geometry of ball-and-socket artificial disc on lumbar spine: a finite element study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(6):E332–9.CrossRef

47.

Xu H, Ju W, Xu N, Zhang XJ, Zhu XD, Zhu LF, Qian XF, Wen FB, Wu WD, Jiang FG. Biomechanical comparison of Transforaminal lumbar Interbody fusion with 1 or 2 cages by finite-element analysis. Neurosurgery. 2013;73:198–205.

48.

Wang K, Jiang CH, Wang LJ, Wang HH, Niu WX. The biomechanical influence of anterior vertebral body osteophytes on the lumbar spine: a finite element study. Spine J. 2018;18(12):2288–96.CrossRef

49.

Eberlein R, Holzapfel GA, Frohlich M. Multi-segment FEA of the human lumbar spine including the heterogeneity of the annulus fibrosus. Comput Mech. 2004;34(2):147–63.CrossRef

Title: Biomechanical evaluation of strategies for adjacent segment disease after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: is the extension of pedicle screws necessary?
Authors: Ziyang Liang
Jianchao Cui
Jiarui Zhang
Jiahui He
Jingjing Tang
Hui Ren
Linqiang Ye
De Liang
Xiaobing Jiang
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-3103-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Biomechanical evaluation of strategies for adjacent segment disease after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: is the extension of pedicle screws necessary?

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Experiences of sexual health in persons with hip and knee osteoarthritis: a qualitative study

Impact of comorbidity on the short- and medium-term risk of revision in total hip and knee arthroplasty

Diagnosis of avulsion fractures of the distal fibula after lateral ankle sprain in children: a diagnostic accuracy study comparing ultrasonography with radiography

Structural validity of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire and its short version, the 6-Item CTS symptoms scale: a Rasch analysis one year after surgery

Does the IOFix implant improve union rates?

Treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture – a multicentre, non-inferiority analysis