Literature DB >> 32194891

Biomechanical effects of direction-changeable cage positions on lumbar spine: a finite element study.

Haiping Zhang1, Dingjun Hao1, Honghui Sun1, Sinmin He1, Biao Wang1, Huimin Hu1, Yongyuan Zhang1.   

Abstract

This finite element (FE) study of lumbar biomechanics aims to predict how the parameters like range of motion (ROM), intervertebral disc pressure (IDP), cage stress and screw stress are affected by different direction-changeable cage positions. Firstly, the three-dimensional FE model of L3-L5 segment was developed, and the model was adjusted to adapt different direction-changeable cage positions at the L4-L5 level though transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with pedicle screws. The effects of Type A (the lateral region), Type B (the lateralcentral region) and Type C (the anteriocentral region) on ROM, IDP, cage stress and screw stress were examined. The results showed that after implantation of interbody cages at different positions, the ROM at surgical level L4-L5 decreased substantially in all motion modes. The maximal stress in cage decreased with Type A, B and C in all motion modes except flexion and extension. The maximal cage stress was observed in Type A with 720.5 MPa in left rotation, in Type B with 707 MPa in flexion, in Type C with 397.3 MPa in left rotation, respectively. The maximal IDP was similar in three types, with 1.6 MPa in left lateral bending in Type A, 1.5 MPa in flexion in Type B, and 1.4 MPa in flexion in Type C. The range of screw peak stress was 16.4 to 61.1 MPa in Type A, 15.9 to 50.9 MPa in Type B, and 14.6 to 46.1 MPa Type C. In conclusion, comparing the cages with different positions, anteriocentral position cage has more advantages like lower cage stress, ODL and screw stress. AJTR
Copyright © 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Direction-changeable cage; TLIF; biomechanics; finite element

Year:  2020        PMID: 32194891      PMCID: PMC7061850     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Transl Res        ISSN: 1943-8141            Impact factor:   4.060


  23 in total

1.  Computational comparison of three posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques by using porous titanium interbody cages with 50% porosity.

Authors:  Yung-Heng Lee; Chi-Jen Chung; Chih-Wei Wang; Yao-Te Peng; Chih-Han Chang; Chih-Hsien Chen; Yen-Nien Chen; Chun-Ting Li
Journal:  Comput Biol Med       Date:  2016-02-03       Impact factor: 4.589

Review 2.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications.

Authors:  Langston T Holly; James D Schwender; David P Rouben; Kevin T Foley
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2006-03-15       Impact factor: 4.047

Review 3.  Risk factors for cage retropulsion after lumbar interbody fusion surgery: Series of cases and literature review.

Authors:  Fu-Min Pan; Shan-Jin Wang; Zhi-Yao Yong; Xiao-Ming Liu; Yu-Feng Huang; De-Sheng Wu
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 6.071

4.  Biomechanical analysis of cervical range of motion and facet contact force after a novel artificial cervical disc replacement.

Authors:  Xin Zhao; Wei Yuan
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2019-05-15       Impact factor: 4.060

5.  Biomechanical Effects of the Geometry of Ball-and-Socket Artificial Disc on Lumbar Spine: A Finite Element Study.

Authors:  Jisoo Choi; Dong-Ah Shin; Sohee Kim
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  The Influence of Artificial Cervical Disc Prosthesis Height on the Cervical Biomechanics: A Finite Element Study.

Authors:  Wei Yuan; Haiping Zhang; Xiaoshu Zhou; Weidong Wu; Yue Zhu
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2018-02-17       Impact factor: 2.104

7.  Bone graft incorporation in radiographically successful human intervertebral body fusion cages.

Authors:  D Togawa; T W Bauer; J W Brantigan; G L Lowery
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  The indications for interbody fusion cages in the treatment of spondylolisthesis: analysis of 120 cases.

Authors:  Paul C McAfee; John G DeVine; Christopher D Chaput; Brad G Prybis; Ira L Fedder; Bryan W Cunningham; Dennis J Farrell; Samuel J Hess; Franco E Vigna
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Anterior reconstruction with nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 cage after thoracic and lumbar corpectomy.

Authors:  Xi Yang; Yueming Song; Limin Liu; Hao Liu; Jiancheng Zeng; Fuxing Pei
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2012-01-16       Impact factor: 1.390

10.  Cage positioning as a risk factor for posterior cage migration following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - an analysis of 953 cases.

Authors:  Yung-Hsueh Hu; Chi-Chien Niu; Ming-Kai Hsieh; Tsung-Ting Tsai; Wen-Jer Chen; Po-Liang Lai
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Influence of the geometric and material properties of lumbar endplate on lumbar interbody fusion failure: a systematic review.

Authors:  Yihang Yu; Dale L Robinson; David C Ackland; Yi Yang; Peter Vee Sin Lee
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2022-04-10       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 2.  Understanding the Future Prospects of Synergizing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery with Ceramics and Regenerative Cellular Therapies.

Authors:  Wen-Cheng Lo; Lung-Wen Tsai; Yi-Shan Yang; Ryan Wing Yuk Chan
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 5.923

3.  A novel anatomic titanium mesh cage for reducing the subsidence rate after anterior cervical corpectomy: a finite element study.

Authors:  Yuhang Wang; Yi Zhan; Huiming Yang; Hua Guo; Haiping Zhang; Qinpeng Zhao; Dingjun Hao; Biao Wang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-28       Impact factor: 4.379

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.