Literature DB >> 31628540

Stress analysis of the implants in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion under static and vibration loadings: a comparison between pedicle screw fixation system with rigid and flexible rods.

Wei Fan1, Li-Xin Guo2, Dan Zhao3,4.   

Abstract

The use of a pedicle screw fixation system with rods made of more compliant materials has become increasingly popular for spine fusion surgery in recent years. The aim of this study was to compare stress responses of the implants in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) when using flexible and conventional rigid posterior fixation systems. A previously validated intact L1-S1 finite element model was modified to simulate single-level (L4-L5) TLIF with bilateral pedicle screw fixation using two types of connecting rod (rigid and flexible rods). The von Mises stresses in the implants (including TLIF cage, pedicle screws and rods) for the rigid and flexible fixations were analyzed under static and vibration loadings. The results showed that compared with the rigid fixation, the use of flexible fixation decreased the maximum stress in the pedicle screws, but increased the maximum stress in the cage and the ratio of maximum stress in the rods to the yield stress. It was also found that with decreasing diameter of the flexible rod (i.e. increasing flexibility of the rod), the maximum stress was decreased in the pedicle screws but increased in the cage and the rods. The findings imply that compared with the rigid rod, application of the flexible rod in the pedicle screw fixation system for the TLIF might decrease the breakage risk of pedicle screws but increase the risk of cage subsidence and rod breakage. Moreover, flexibility of the rod in the flexible fixation system should be carefully determined.

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31628540     DOI: 10.1007/s10856-019-6320-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med        ISSN: 0957-4530            Impact factor:   3.896


  36 in total

1.  Load-sharing characteristics of stabilized lumbar spine segments.

Authors:  P A Cripton; G M Jain; R H Wittenberg; L P Nolte
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-01-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  In vitro study of biomechanical behavior of anterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody instrumentation techniques.

Authors:  Thomas K Niemeyer; Marco Koriller; Lutz Claes; Annette Kettler; Kathrin Werner; Hans J Wilke
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.654

3.  Lumbar interbody fusion: a parametric investigation of a novel cage design with and without posterior instrumentation.

Authors:  Fabio Galbusera; Hendrik Schmidt; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-09-15       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  A comparison of the influence of three different lumbar interbody fusion approaches on stress in the pedicle screw fixation system: Finite element static and vibration analyses.

Authors:  Wei Fan; Li-Xin Guo
Journal:  Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng       Date:  2018-10-30       Impact factor: 2.747

5.  Comparison of the biomechanical effect of pedicle-based dynamic stabilization: a study using finite element analysis.

Authors:  Tae-Ahn Jahng; Young Eun Kim; Kyung Yun Moon
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2012-12-21       Impact factor: 4.166

6.  ISSLS Prize Winner: Vibration Really Does Disrupt the Disc: A Microanatomical Investigation.

Authors:  Kelly R Wade; Meredith L Schollum; Peter A Robertson; Ashvin Thambyah; Neil D Broom
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Long-term effects of placing one or two cages in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Mingzheng Zhang; Fang Pu; Liqiang Xu; Linlin Zhang; Jie Yao; Deyu Li; Yu Wang; Yubo Fan
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-04-18       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Biomechanical evaluation of different surgical procedures in single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in vitro.

Authors:  Yuanwu Cao; Fubing Liu; Shengcheng Wan; Yun Liang; Chun Jiang; Zhenzhou Feng; Xiaoxing Jiang; Zixian Chen
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 2.063

9.  Biomechanical evaluation of a new pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilization device (Awesome Rod System)--a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Chen-Sheng Chen; Chang-Hung Huang; Shih-Liang Shih
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2015-04-09       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Clinical outcomes of two types of cages used in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases: n-HA/PA66 cages versus PEEK cages.

Authors:  Qian-xing Deng; Yun-sheng Ou; Yong Zhu; Zeng-hui Zhao; Bo Liu; Qiu Huang; Xing Du; Dian-ming Jiang
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2016-04-18       Impact factor: 3.896

View more
  3 in total

1.  Biomechanical analysis of lumbar interbody fusion supplemented with various posterior stabilization systems.

Authors:  Wei Fan; Li-Xin Guo; Ming Zhang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Effects of Revision Rod Position on Spinal Construct Stability in Lumbar Revision Surgery: A Finite Element Study.

Authors:  Quan-Chang Tan; Jin-Feng Huang; Hao Bai; Zi-Xuan Liu; Xin-Yi Huang; Xiong Zhao; Zhao Yang; Cheng-Fei Du; Wei Lei; Zi-Xiang Wu
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-01-05

3.  Biomechanical Evaluation of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Coflex-F and Pedicle Screw Fixation: Finite Element Analysis of Static and Vibration Conditions.

Authors:  Jia Zhu; Hangkai Shen; Yangyang Cui; Guy R Fogel; Zhenhua Liao; Weiqiang Liu
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2022-08-10       Impact factor: 2.279

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.