PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of bmcmudisBioMed Centralsearchsubmit a manuscriptregisterthis articleBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
 
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012; 13: 72.
Published online May 16, 2012. doi:  10.1186/1471-2474-13-72
PMCID: PMC3503692
Biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral pedicle screws fixation for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion after decompressive surgery -- a finite element analysis
Shih-Hao Chen,corresponding author1 Shang-Chih Lin,2 Wen-Chi Tsai,3 Chih-Wei Wang,2 and Shih-Heng Chao4
1Department of Orthopaedics, Tzu-Chi General Hospital at Taichung and Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan
2Graduate Institute of Biomedical Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan
3BoneCare Orthopedic Centers, Han-Chiung Clinics, Taipei, Taiwan
4Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Chiao-Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
corresponding authorCorresponding author.
Shih-Hao Chen: shihhao603/at/tzuchi.com.tw; Shang-Chih Lin: orthodent.cax/at/gmail.com; Wen-Chi Tsai: dtorth05/at/yahoo.com.tw; Chih-Wei Wang: jw87121/at/hotmail.com; Shih-Heng Chao: ortholabb/at/gmail.com
Received August 9, 2011; Accepted April 20, 2012.
Abstract
Background
Little is known about the biomechanical effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cages in different positioning and various posterior implants used after decompressive surgery. The use of the various implants will induce the kinematic and mechanical changes in range of motion (ROM) and stresses at the surgical and adjacent segments. Unilateral pedicle screw with or without supplementary facet screw fixation in the minimally invasive TLIF procedure has not been ascertained to provide adequate stability without the need to expose on the contralateral side. This study used finite element (FE) models to investigate biomechanical differences in ROM and stress on the neighboring structures after TLIF cages insertion in conjunction with posterior fixation.
Methods
A validated finite-element (FE) model of L1-S1 was established to implant three types of cages (TLIF with a single moon-shaped cage in the anterior or middle portion of vertebral bodies, and TLIF with a left diagonally placed ogival-shaped cage) from the left L4-5 level after unilateral decompressive surgery. Further, the effects of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF vs. BPSF) in each TLIF cage model was compared to analyze parameters, including stresses and ROM on the neighboring annulus, cage-vertebral interface and pedicle screws.
Results
All the TLIF cages positioned with BPSF showed similar ROM (<5%) at surgical and adjacent levels, except TLIF with an anterior cage in flexion (61% lower) and TLIF with a left diagonal cage in left lateral bending (33% lower) at surgical level. On the other hand, the TLIF cage models with left UPSF showed varying changes of ROM and annulus stress in extension, right lateral bending and right axial rotation at surgical level. In particular, the TLIF model with a diagonal cage, UPSF, and contralateral facet screw fixation stabilize segmental motion of the surgical level mostly in extension and contralaterally axial rotation. Prominent stress shielded to the contralateral annulus, cage-vertebral interface, and pedicle screw at surgical level. A supplementary facet screw fixation shared stresses around the neighboring tissues and revealed similar ROM and stress patterns to those models with BPSF.
Conclusions
TLIF surgery is not favored for asymmetrical positioning of a diagonal cage and UPSF used in contralateral axial rotation or lateral bending. Supplementation of a contralateral facet screw is recommended for the TLIF construct.
Keywords: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, Pedicle screw fixation, Contralateral facet screw, Finite element analysis
Articles from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders are provided here courtesy of
BioMed Central