Literature DB >> 16582849

Biomechanical assessment of anterior lumbar interbody fusion with an anterior lumbosacral fixation screw-plate: comparison to stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion and anterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screws in an unstable human cadaver model.

Mark Gerber1, Neil R Crawford, Robert H Chamberlain, Mary S Fifield, Jean-Charles LeHuec, Curtis A Dickman.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Human lumbosacral cadaveric specimens were tested in an in vitro biomechanical flexibility experiment using physiologic loads in 5 sequential conditions.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the biomechanical differences between anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) using cylindrical threaded cages alone or supplemented with an anterior screw-plate or posterior pedicle screws-rods. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Clinically and biomechanically, stand-alone ALIF performs modestly in immobilizing the unstable spine. Pedicle screws improve fixation stiffness significantly, but supplementary anterior instrumentation has not been studied.
METHODS: There were 7 specimens tested: (1) intact, (2) after discectomy and facetectomy to induce moderate rotational and translational hypermobility, (3) with 2 parallel ALIF cages, (4) with cages plus a triangular anterior screw-plate, and (5) with cages plus pedicle screws-rods. Pure moments without preload induced flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation; linear shear forces induced anteroposterior translation. Angular and linear motions were measured stereophotogrammetrically, and range of motion (ROM) and stiffness were quantified.
RESULTS: Compared to the destabilized spine, interbody cages alone reduced ROM by 77% during flexion, 53% during extension, 60% during lateral bending, 69% during axial rotation, and 71% during anteroposterior shear (P < 0.001, analysis of variance/Fisher least significant difference). Addition of an anterior plate or pedicle screws-rods, respectively, further reduced ROM by 8% or 13% during flexion (P = 0.21), 21% or 28% during extension (P = 0.15), 5% or 25% during lateral bending (P = 0.04), 11% or 18% during axial rotation (P = 0.13), and 18% or 18% during anteroposterior shear (P = 0.17). Compared to stand-alone ALIF, both the anterior screw-plate and pedicle screw-rod fixation reduced vertebral ROM to less than 1.2 degrees of rotation and less than 0.1 mm of translation.
CONCLUSIONS: The anterior screw-plate and pedicle screws-rods both substantially reduced ROM and increased stiffness compared to stand-alone interbody cages. There was no significant difference in the amount by which the supplementary fixation devices limited flexion, extension, axial rotation, or anteroposterior shear; pedicle screws-rods better restricted lateral bending.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16582849     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000206360.83728.d2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  19 in total

1.  Anterior lumbar interbody fusion with stand-alone interbody cage in treatment of lumbar intervertebral foraminal stenosis : comparative study of two different types of cages.

Authors:  Chul-Bum Cho; Kyeong-Sik Ryu; Chun-Kun Park
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2010-05-31

2.  Stand-alone ALIF with integrated intracorporeal anchoring plates in the treatment of degenerative lumbar disc disease: a prospective study on 65 cases.

Authors:  Jérôme Allain; Joël Delecrin; Jacques Beaurain; Alexandre Poignard; Thierry Vila; Charles-Henri Flouzat-Lachaniette
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-06-22       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Biomechanical comparison of anterior lumbar screw-plate fixation versus posterior lumbar pedicle screw fixation.

Authors:  Lie-Hua Liu; Cong-Tao Guo; Qiang Zhou; Xiao-Bing Pu; Lei Song; Hao-Ming Wang; Chen Zhao; Shi-Ming Cheng; Yang-Jun Lan; Ling Liu
Journal:  J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci       Date:  2014-12-06

Review 4.  [Intervertebral cages from a biomechanical point of view].

Authors:  W Schmoelz; A Keiler
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 5.  Comparison of ALIF vs. XLIF for L4/5 interbody fusion: pros, cons, and literature review.

Authors:  Mark J Winder; Shanu Gambhir
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-03

6.  Integrated Fixation Cage Loosening Under Fatigue Loading.

Authors:  Srinidhi Nagaraja; Vivek Palepu
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-06-28

7.  Anterior stand-alone fusion revisited: a prospective clinical, X-ray and CT investigation.

Authors:  Christoph J Siepe; Katrin Stosch-Wiechert; Franziska Heider; Phat Amnajtrakul; Alexander Krenauer; Wolfgang Hitzl; Ulrike Szeimies; Axel Stäbler; H Michael Mayer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-12-05       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Cement Augmentation Without Posterior Fixation to Treat Isthmic Spondylolisthesis in an Osteopenic Patient-A Surgical Technique.

Authors:  Mathew Cyriac; Justin Kyhos; Uchechi Iweala; Danny Lee; Matthew Mantell; Warren Yu; Joseph R O'Brien
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-08-15

9.  Feasibility of anterior pedicle screw fixation in lumbosacral spine: a radiographic and cadaveric study.

Authors:  Wei-Xing Xu; Bin Xu; Wei-Guo Ding; Hong-Feng Sheng; Di Lu; Tian-Hong Hu
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-06

10.  Comparison of low back fusion techniques: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approaches.

Authors:  Chad D Cole; Todd D McCall; Meic H Schmidt; Andrew T Dailey
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2009-04-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.