Literature DB >> 18197089

Enhancing the stability of anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical comparison of anterior plate versus posterior transpedicular instrumentation.

Michael N Tzermiadianos1, Anis Mekhail, Leonard I Voronov, Jason Zook, Robert M Havey, Susan M Renner, Gerard Carandang, Celeste Abjornson, Avinash G Patwardhan.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Biomechanical study using human cadaver spines.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the stabilizing effect of a supplemental anterior tension band (ATB, Synthes) plate on L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) using a femoral ring allograft (FRA) under physiologic compressive preloads, and to compare the results with the stability achieved using FRA with supplemental transpedicular instrumentation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Posterior instrumentation can improve the stability of ALIF cages. Anterior plates have been proposed as an alternative to avoid the additional posterior approach.
METHODS: Eight human specimens (L3 to sacrum) were tested in the following sequence: (i) intact, (ii) after anterior insertion of an FRA at L5-S1, (iii) after instrumentation with the ATB plate, and (iv) after removal of the plate and adding transpedicular instrumentation at the same level. Specimens were tested in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Flexion-extension was tested under 0 N, 400 N, and 800 N compressive follower preload to simulate physiologic compressive preloads on the lumbar spine.
RESULTS: Stand-alone FRAs significantly decreased the range of motion (ROM) in all tested directions (P < 0.05); however, the resultant ROM was large in flexion-extension ranging between 6.1 +/- 3.1 degrees and 5.1 +/- 2.2 degrees under 0 N to 800 N preloads. The ATB plate resulted in a significant additional decrease in flexion-extension ROM under 400 N and 800 N preloads (P < 0.05). The flexion-extension ROM with the ATB plate was 4.1 +/- 2.3 under 0 N preload and ranged from 3.1 +/- 1.8 to 2.4 +/- 1.3 under 400 N to 800 N preloads. The plate did not significantly decrease lateral bending or axial rotation ROM compared with stand-alone FRA (P > 0.05), but the resultant ROM was 2.7 +/-1.9 degrees and 0.9 +/- 0.6 degrees , respectively. Compared with the ATB plate, the transpedicular instrumentation resulted in significantly less ROM in flexion-extension and lateral bending (P < 0.05), but not in axial rotation (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The ATB plate can significantly increase the stability of the anterior FRA at L5-S1 level. Although supplemental transpedicular instrumentation results in a more stable biomechanical environment, the resultant ROM with the addition of a plate is small, especially under physiologic preload, suggesting that the plate can sufficiently resist motion. Therefore, clinical assessment of the ATB plate as an alternative to transpedicular instrumentation to enhance ALIF cage stability is considered reasonable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18197089     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181604644

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


  9 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Biomechanics of an Expandable Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Deployed Through Transforaminal Approach.

Authors:  Michael Conti Mica; Leonard I Voronov; Gerard Carandang; Robert M Havey; Bartosz Wojewnik; Avinash G Patwardhan
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-08-01

4.  Biomechanics of an Expandable Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Deployed Through Transforaminal Approach.

Authors:  Michael Conti Mica; Leonard I Voronov; Gerard Carandang; Robert M Havey; Bartosz Wojewnik; Avinash G Patwardhan
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-08-31

5.  Complication with removal of a lumbar spinal locking plate.

Authors:  Brooke Crawford; Christopher Lenarz; J Tracy Watson; Dirk Alander
Journal:  Case Rep Orthop       Date:  2015-03-09

6.  A radiological comparison of anterior fusion rates in anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  M J H McCarthy; L Ng; G Vermeersch; D Chan
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2012-11-19

7.  Construct Rigidity after Fatigue Loading in Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy with or without Adjacent Interbody Structural Cages.

Authors:  Vedat Deviren; Jessica A Tang; Justin K Scheer; Jenni M Buckley; Murat Pekmezci; R Trigg McClellan; Christopher P Ames
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2012-12-06

8.  Biomechanical characteristics of an integrated lumbar interbody fusion device.

Authors:  Leonard I Voronov; Georgios Vastardis; Julia Zelenakova; Gerard Carandang; Robert M Havey; Erik I Waldorff; Michael R Zindrick; Avinash G Patwardhan
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2014-12-01

9.  Pullout of a lumbar plate with varying screw lengths.

Authors:  Daniel Kyle Palmer; David Rios; Wyzscx Merfil Patacxil; Paul A Williams; Wayne K Cheng; Serkan İnceoğlu
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2012-12-01
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.