Top

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research article

Biomechanical feasibility of semi-rigid stabilization and semi-rigid lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element study

Authors: Chia-En Wong, Hsuan-Teh Hu, Li-Hsing Kao, Che-Jung Liu, Ke-Chuan Chen, Kuo-Yuan Huang

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2022

Abstract

Background

Semi-rigid lumbar fusion offers a compromise between pedicle screw-based rigid fixation and non-instrumented lumbar fusion. However, the use of semi-rigid interspinous stabilization (SIS) with interspinous spacer and ligamentoplasty and semi-rigid posterior instrumentation (SPI) to assist interbody cage as fusion constructs remained controversial. The purpose of this study is to investigate the biomechanical properties of semi-rigidly stabilized lumbar fusion using SIS or SPI and their effect on adjacent levels using finite element (FE) method.

Method

Eight FE models were constructed to simulate the lumbosacral spine. In the non-fusion constructs, semi-rigid stabilization with (i) semi-rigid interspinous spacer and artificial ligaments (PD-SIS), and (ii) PI with semi-rigid rods were simulated (PD + SPI). For fusion constructs, the spinal models were implanted with (iii) PEEK cage only (Cage), (iv) PEEK cage and SIS (Cage+SIS), (v) PEEK cage and SPI (Cage+SPI), (vi) PEEK cage and rigid PI (Cage+PI).

Result

The comparison of flexion-extension range of motion (ROM) in the operated level showed the difference between Cage+SIS, Cage+SPI, and Cage+PI was less than 0.05 degree. In axial rotation, ROM of Cage+SIS were greater than Cage+PI by 0.81 degree. In the infrajacent level, while Cage+PI increased the ROM by 24.1, 27,7, 25.9, and 10.3% and Cage+SPI increased the ROM by 26.1, 30.0, 27.1, and 10.8% in flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation respectively, Cage+SIS only increased the ROM by 3.6, 2.8, and 11.2% in flexion, extension, and lateral bending and reduced the ROM by 1.5% in axial rotation. The comparison of the von Mises stress showed that SIS reduced the adjacent IVD stress by 9.0%. The simulation of the strain energy showed a difference between constructs less than 7.9%, but all constructs increased the strain energy in the infradjacent level.

Conclusion

FE simulation showed semi-rigid fusion constructs including Cage+SIS and Cage+SPI can provide sufficient stabilization and flexion-extension ROM reduction at the fusion level. In addition, SIS-assisted fusion resulted in less hypermobility and less von Mises stress in the adjacent levels. However, SIS-assisted fusion had a disadvantage of less ROM reduction in lateral bending and axial rotation. Further clinical studies are warranted to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of semi-rigid fusions.

Lin PM. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion technique: complications and pitfalls. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;:90–102. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3882302.

Cloward RB. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion updated. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;:16–9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3971616.

Prolo DJ, Oklund SA, Butcher M. Toward uniformity in evaluating results of lumbar spine operations. A paradigm applied to posterior lumbar interbody fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 11:601–6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198607000-00012.

Ye Y, Chen D, Xu H. The comparison of instrumented and non-instrumented fusion in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2014;23:1918–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3453-1.CrossRefPubMed

Babu MA, Coumans J-VC, Carter BS, Taylor WR, Kasper EM, Roitberg BZ, et al. A review of lumbar spinal instrumentation: evidence and controversy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2011;82:948–51. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2010.231860.CrossRefPubMed

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;29:1938–44. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000137069.88904.03.CrossRef

Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Hodges SD. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion: a review of clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic studies. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 1999;28:336–40 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10401898.

Jain P, Rana M, Biswas JK, Khan MR. Biomechanics of spinal implants—a review. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2020;6:042002. https://doi.org/10.1088/2057-1976/ab9dd2.CrossRefPubMed

Epstein N. A review: reduced reoperation rate for multilevel lumbar laminectomies with noninstrumented versus instrumented fusions. Surg Neurol Int. 2016;7:337. https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.182546.CrossRef

10.

Zdeblick TA. A Prospective, Randomized Study of Lumbar Fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993;18:983–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199306150-00006.CrossRef

11.

Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A. Chronic Low Back Pain and Fusion: A Comparison of Three Surgical Techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27:1131–41. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200206010-00002.CrossRef

12.

Ozer AF, Oktenoglu T, Egemen E, Sasani M, Yilmaz A, Erbulut DU, et al. Lumbar single-level dynamic stabilization with semi-rigid and full dynamic systems: a retrospective clinical and radiological analysis of 71 patients. Clin Orthop Surg. 2017;9:310–6. https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2017.9.3.310.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Sénégas J, Vital J-M, Pointillart V, Mangione P. Clinical evaluation of a lumbar interspinous dynamic stabilization device (the Wallis system) with a 13-year mean follow-up. Neurosurg Rev. 2009;32:335–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-009-0199-z.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Wilke H-J, Drumm J, Häussler K, Mack C, Steudel W-I, Kettler A. Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J. 2008;17:1049–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0657-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Rana M, Roy S, Biswas P, Biswas SK, Biswas JK. Design and development of a novel expanding flexible rod device (FRD) for stability in the lumbar spine: a finite-element study. Int J Artif Organs. 2020;43:803–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0391398820917390.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Jain P, Khan MR. Prediction of biomechanical behavior of lumbar vertebrae using a novel semi-rigid stabilization device. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H J Eng Med. 2019;233:849–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954411919856497.CrossRef

17.

Li C, Liu L, Shi J-Y, Yan K-Z, Shen W-Z, Yang Z-R. Clinical and biomechanical researches of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rods for semi-rigid lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Neurosurg Rev. 2018;41:375–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-016-0763-2.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Korovessis P, Papazisis Z, Koureas G, Lambiris E. Rigid, Semirigid Versus Dynamic Instrumentation for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29:735–42. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000112072.83196.0F.CrossRef

19.

Harris BM, Hilibrand AS, Savas PE, Pellegrino A, Vaccaro AR, Siegler S, et al. Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29:E65–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000113034.74567.86.CrossRef

20.

Bothmann M, Kast E, Boldt GJ, Oberle J. Dynesys fixation for lumbar spine degeneration. Neurosurg Rev. 2008;31:189–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-007-0101-9.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Gornet MF, Chan FW, Coleman JC, Murrell B, Nockels RP, Taylor BA, et al. Biomechanical assessment of a PEEK rod system for semi-rigid fixation of lumbar fusion constructs. J Biomech Eng. 2011;133:081009. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4004862.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Biswas JK, Roy S, Rana M, Halder S. A comparison of rigid, semi-rigid and flexible spinal stabilization devices: a finite element study. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H J Eng Med. 2019;233:1292–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954411919880694.CrossRef

23.

Hsieh Y-Y, Tsuang F-Y, Kuo Y-J, Chen C-H, Chiang C-J, Lin C-L. Biomechanical analysis of single-level interbody fusion with different internal fixation rod materials: a finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21:100. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-3111-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Winn H. Youmans and Winn Neurological Surgery.

25.

Parchi PD, Evangelisti G, Vertuccio A, Piolanti N, Andreani L, Cervi V, et al. Biomechanics of Interspinous devices. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/839325.CrossRef

26.

Phillips FM, Voronov LI, Gaitanis IN, Carandang G, Havey RM, Patwardhan AG. Biomechanics of posterior dynamic stabilizing device (DIAM) after facetectomy and discectomy. Spine J. 2006;6:714–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2006.02.003.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Tsai K-J, Murakami H, Lowery GL, Hutton WC. A biomechanical evaluation of an interspinous device (Coflex) used to stabilize the lumbar spine. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2006;15:167–72 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17087886.PubMed

28.

Lafage V, Gangnet N, Sénégas J, Lavaste F, Skalli W. New Interspinous Implant Evaluation Using an In Vitro Biomechanical Study Combined With a Finite-Element Analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:1706–13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3180b9f429.

29.

Gonzalez-Blohm SA, Doulgeris JJ, Aghayev K, Lee WE, Volkov A, Vrionis FD. Biomechanical analysis of an interspinous fusion device as a stand-alone and as supplemental fixation to posterior expandable interbody cages in the lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20:209–19. https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.10.SPINE13612.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Kuchta J, Sobottke R, Eysel P, Simons P. Two-year results of interspinous spacer (X-stop) implantation in 175 patients with neurologic intermittent claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J. 2009;18:823–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0967-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Watanabe K, Matsumoto M, Ikegami T, Nishiwaki Y, Tsuji T, Ishii K, et al. Reduced postoperative wound pain after lumbar spinous process–splitting laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis: a randomized controlled study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14:51–8. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.9.SPINE09933.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Pfirrmann CWA, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. Magnetic Resonance Classification of Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26:1873–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200109010-00011.CrossRef

33.

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;12:413–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-002-0505-8.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Wong C-E, Hu H-T, Hsieh M-P, Huang K-Y. Optimization of three-level cervical hybrid surgery to prevent adjacent segment disease: a finite element study. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020;8:154. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.00154.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Wong C-E, Hu H-T, Tsai C-H, Li J-L, Hsieh C-C, Huang K-Y. Comparison of posterior fixation strategies for thoracolumbar burst fracture: a finite element study. J Biomech Eng. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4050537.

36.

Benneker LM, Heini PF, Anderson SE, Alini M, Ito K. Correlation of radiographic and MRI parameters to morphological and biochemical assessment of intervertebral disc degeneration. Eur Spine J. 2005;14:27–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0759-4.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Antoniou J, Epure LM, Michalek AJ, Grant MP, Iatridis JC, Mwale F. Analysis of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging and biomechanical parameters on human discs with different grades of degeneration. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;38:1402–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24120.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Shan Z, Li S, Liu J, Mamuti M, Wang C, Zhao F. Correlation between biomechanical properties of the annulus fibrosus and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:1909–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4061-4.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Polikeit A, Nolte LP, Ferguson SJ. Simulated influence of osteoporosis and disc degeneration on the load transfer in a lumbar functional spinal unit. J Biomech. 2004;37:1061–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2003.11.018.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Goel VK, Park H, Kong W. Investigation of vibration characteristics of the ligamentous lumbar spine using the finite element approach. J Biomech Eng. 1994;116:377–83. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2895787.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Pearcy M, Portek I, Shepherd J. Three-dimensional x-ray analysis of normal movement in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984;9:294–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198404000-00013.CrossRef

42.

Pearcy MJ, Tibrewal SB. Axial rotation and lateral bending in the normal lumbar spine measured by three-dimensional radiography. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984;9:582–7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198409000-00008.

43.

White AA, Panjabi MM. The basic kinematics of the human spine. A review of past and current knowledge. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1978;3:12–20. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-197803000-00003.

44.

Yamamoto I, Panjabi MM, Crisco T, Oxland T. Three-dimensional movements of the whole lumbar spine and lumbosacral joint. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989;14:1256–60. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198911000-00020.

45.

Cunningham BW, Kotani Y, McNulty PS, Cappuccino A, McAfee PC. The effect of spinal destabilization and instrumentation on lumbar intradiscal pressure: an in vitro biomechanical analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22:2655–63. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199711150-00014.

46.

Brinckmann P, Grootenboer H. Change of disc height, radial disc bulge, and intradiscal pressure from discectomy. An in vitro investigation on human lumbar discs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991;16:641–6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199106000-00008.

47.

Wilke HJ, Wolf S, Claes LE, Arand M, Wiesend A. Influence of varying muscle forces on lumbar intradiscal pressure: an in vitro study. J Biomech. 1996;29:549–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(95)00037-2.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Li C, He Q, Tang Y, Ruan D. The fate of adjacent segments with pre-existing degeneration after lumbar posterolateral fusion: the influence of degenerative grading. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:2468–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3921-2.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Saleem S, Aslam HM, Rehmani MAK, Raees A, Alvi AA, Ashraf J. Lumbar disc degenerative disease: disc degeneration symptoms and magnetic resonance image findings. Asian Spine J. 2013;7:322–34. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2013.7.4.322.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Ravindra VM, Senglaub SS, Rattani A, Dewan MC, Härtl R, Bisson E, et al. Degenerative lumbar spine disease: estimating global incidence and worldwide volume. Glob spine J. 2018;8:784–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568218770769.CrossRef

51.

Chun DS, Baker KC, Hsu WK. Lumbar pseudarthrosis: a review of current diagnosis and treatment. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;39:E10. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.7.FOCUS15292.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Reid JJ, Johnson JS, Wang JC. Challenges to bone formation in spinal fusion. J Biomech. 2011;44:213–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.10.021.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Narimani M, Arjmand N. Three-dimensional primary and coupled range of motions and movement coordination of the pelvis, lumbar and thoracic spine in standing posture using inertial tracking device. J Biomech. 2018;69:169–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.01.017.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Wang H, Ma L, Yang D, Wang T, Liu S, Yang S, et al. Incidence and risk factors of adjacent segment disease following posterior decompression and instrumented fusion for degenerative lumbar disorders. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e6032. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000006032.

55.

Pan A, Hai Y, Yang J, Zhou L, Chen X, Guo H. Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal fusion compared with motion-preservation procedures: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2016;25:1522–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4415-6.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Doblaré M, García JM, Gómez MJ. Modelling bone tissue fracture and healing: a review. Eng Fract Mech. 2004;71:1809–40.CrossRef

57.

Kelsey JL. An epidemiological study of acute herniated lumbar intervertebral discs. Rheumatol Rehabil. 1975;14:144–59. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/14.3.144.CrossRefPubMed

58.

Pattin CA, Caler WE, Carter DR. Cyclic mechanical property degradation during fatigue loading of cortical bone. J Biomech. 1996;29:69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(94)00156-1.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Kothe R, Rüther W, Schneider E, Linke B. Biomechanical analysis of transpedicular screw fixation in the subaxial cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29:1869–75. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000137287.67388.0b.

Title: Biomechanical feasibility of semi-rigid stabilization and semi-rigid lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element study
Authors: Chia-En Wong
Hsuan-Teh Hu
Li-Hsing Kao
Che-Jung Liu
Ke-Chuan Chen
Kuo-Yuan Huang
Publication date: 01-12-2022
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04958-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Biomechanical feasibility of semi-rigid stabilization and semi-rigid lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element study

Abstract

Background

Method

Result

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Method

Result

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Comparative outcome of different treatment options for fragility fractures of the sacrum

Radiographic analysis of dynamic lumbar motion during the five-repetition sit-to-stand test in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

Evaluation of early complications, outcome, and mortality in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection in patients who underwent orthopedic surgery

Association of bone-related biomarkers with femoral neck bone strength

Is the reconstruction of medial support important for revision following failed treatment of femoral trochanteric fractures? a retrospective comparative study

Epidemiology of fractures in children with cerebral palsy: a Swedish population-based registry study