Literature DB >> 24405464

Biomechanics of lateral lumbar interbody fusion constructs with lateral and posterior plate fixation: laboratory investigation.

Guy R Fogel1, Rachit D Parikh, Stephen I Ryu, Alexander W L Turner.   

Abstract

OBJECT: Lumbar interbody fusion is indicated in the treatment of degenerative conditions. Laterally inserted interbody cages significantly decrease range of motion (ROM) compared with other cages. Supplemental fixation options such as lateral plates or spinous process plates have been shown to provide stability and to reduce morbidity. The authors of the current study investigate the in vitro stability of the interbody cage with a combination of lateral and spinous process plate fixation and compare this method to the established bilateral pedicle screw fixation technique.
METHODS: Ten L1-5 specimens were evaluated using multidirectional nondestructive moments (± 7.5 N · m), with a custom 6 degrees-of-freedom spine simulator. Intervertebral motions (ROM) were measured optoelectronically. Each spine was evaluated under the following conditions at the L3-4 level: intact; interbody cage alone (stand-alone); cage supplemented with lateral plate; cage supplemented with ipsilateral pedicle screws; cage supplemented with bilateral pedicle screws; cage supplemented with spinous process plate; and cage supplemented with a combination of lateral plate and spinous process plate. Intervertebral rotations were calculated, and ROM data were normalized to the intact ROM data.
RESULTS: The stand-alone laterally inserted interbody cage significantly reduced ROM with respect to the intact state in flexion-extension (31.6% intact ROM, p < 0.001), lateral bending (32.5%, p < 0.001), and axial rotation (69.4%, p = 0.002). Compared with the stand-alone condition, addition of a lateral plate to the interbody cage did not significantly alter the ROM in flexion-extension (p = 0.904); however, it was significantly decreased in lateral bending and axial rotation (p < 0.001). The cage supplemented with a lateral plate was not statistically different from bilateral pedicle screws in lateral bending (p = 0.579). Supplemental fixation using a spinous process plate was not significantly different from bilateral pedicle screws in flexion-extension (p = 0.476). The combination of lateral plate and spinous process plate was not statistically different from the cage supplemented with bilateral pedicle screws in all the loading modes (p ≥ 0.365).
CONCLUSIONS: A combination of lateral and spinous process plate fixation to supplement a laterally inserted interbody cage helps achieve rigidity in all motion planes similar to that achieved with bilateral pedicle screws.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24405464     DOI: 10.3171/2013.11.SPINE13617

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  23 in total

1.  Prospective evaluation of 1-year outcomes in single-level percutaneous lumbar transfacet screw fixation in the lateral decubitus position following lateral transpsoas interbody fusion.

Authors:  Jay W Rhee; Rory J Petteys; Amjad N Anaizi; Faheem A Sandhu; Jean-Marc Voyadzis
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-18       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  MIS lateral spine surgery: a systematic literature review of complications, outcomes, and economics.

Authors:  Jeff A Lehmen; Edward J Gerber
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  [Intervertebral cages from a biomechanical point of view].

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

4.  Ex vivo loading of trussed implants for spine fusion induces heterogeneous strains consistent with homeostatic bone mechanobiology.

Authors:  Jason P Caffrey; Esther Cory; Van W Wong; Koichi Masuda; Albert C Chen; Jessee P Hunt; Timothy M Ganey; Robert L Sah
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2016-11-03       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  Successful Criteria for Indirect Decompression With Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Authors:  Wicharn Yingsakmongkol; Khanathip Jitpakdee; Stephen Kerr; Worawat Limthongkul; Vit Kotheeranurak; Weerasak Singhatanadgige
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2022-08-10

6.  The preoperative Hounsfield unit value at the position of the future screw insertion is a better predictor of screw loosening than other methods.

Authors:  Jingchi Li; Zhuang Zhang; Tianhang Xie; Zhetao Song; Yueming Song; Jiancheng Zeng
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-10-14       Impact factor: 7.034

7.  Biomechanical evaluation of interbody fixation with secondary augmentation: lateral lumbar interbody fusion versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Jakub Godzik; Samuel Kalb; Marco T Reis; Phillip M Reyes; Vaneet Singh; Anna G U S Newcomb; Steve W Chang; Brian P Kelly; Neil R Crawford
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-06

8.  Anterior and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Supplemental Interspinous Process Fixation: Outcomes from a Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study.

Authors:  Ripul Panchal; Ryan Denhaese; Clint Hill; K Brandon Strenge; Alexandre DE Moura; Peter Passias; Paul Arnold; Andrew Cappuccino; M David Dennis; Andy Kranenburg; Brieta Ventimiglia; Kim Martin; Chris Ferry; Sarah Martineck; Camille Moore; Kee Kim
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-08-03

9.  Oblique lateral interbody fusion combined with lateral plate fixation for the treatment of degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine: A retrospective study.

Authors:  Hai-Dong Li; Li Zhong; Ji-Kang Min; Xiang-Qian Fang; Lei-Sheng Jiang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-02-18       Impact factor: 1.817

10.  Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in a lateral decubitus position: technique and outcomes in obese patients.

Authors:  Gregory M Malham; Timothy P Wagner; Matthew H Claydon
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.