Residual sagittal motion after lumbar fusion: A finite element analysis with implications on radiographic flexion-extension criteria

Spine

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 417-422

  Bono, Christopher M ^a,d   Khandha, Ashutosh ^b   Vadapalli, S ^b   Holekamp, Scott ^b   Goel, Vijay K ^b   Garfin, Steven R ^c  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b MEDICAL COLLEGE OF OHIO   (United States)

^c UCSD MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Arthrodesis; Criteria; Finite element analysis; Flexion extension; Lumbar fusion; Pseudarthrosis; Radiographs

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTHOR; BIOMECHANICS; BONE; COMPREHENSION; ELASTICITY; FACETECTOMY; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; HEALING; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; KNOWLEDGE; LUMBAR DISK; LUMBAR FUSION; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; MODEL; PARS INTERARTICULARIS; PHYSIOLOGICAL STRESS; PHYSIOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOGRAPHY; RANGE OF MOTION; RESIDUAL SAGITTAL MOTION; SIMULATION; SPINE FUSION; SPINE MOBILITY; SURGICAL APPROACH; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; VALIDITY;

BIOMECHANICS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; SPINAL FUSION;

EID: 33847035076     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000255201.74795.20     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. DePalma AF, Rothman RH. The nature of pseudarthrosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1968;59:113-8.
2. Chafetz N, Cann CE, Morris JM, et al. Pseudarthrosis following lumbar fusion: Detection by direct coronal CT scanning. Radiology 1987;162:803-5.
3. Brodsky AE, Kovalsky EW, Khalil MA. Correlation of radiologic assessment of lumbar spine fusions with surgical explorations. Spine 1991;16:S261-5.
4. Brantigan JW. Carbon fiber interbody fusion cages: Indications, results, and radiographic interpretation of fusion results. In: Spine: State of the Art Reviews. Philadelphia, PA: Hanley & Belfus; 1997:287-306.
5. Fischgrund JS, Mackay M, Herkowitz HN, et al. Volvo award winner in clinical studies: Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: A prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine 1997;22:2807-12.
6. Frymoyer JW, Hanley EN, Howe J, et al. A comparison of radiographic findings in fusion and nonfusion patients ten or more years following lumbar disc surgery. Spine 1979;4:435-40.
7. Grubb SA, Lipscomb HJ. Results of lumbosacral fusion for degenerative disc disease with and without instrumentation. Spine 1992;17:349-55.
8. Lehmann TR, Spratt KF, Tozzi JE, et al. Long-term follow-up of lower lumbar fusion patients. Spine 1986;12:97-104.
9. Lorenz M, Zindrick M, Schwaegler P, et al. A comparison of single-level fusion with and without hardware. Spine 1991;16:S455-8.
10. Luk DK, Chow DHK, Evans JH, et al. Lumbar spinal mobility after short anterior interbody fusion. Spine 1995;20:813-8.
11. Stauffer RN, Coventry MB. Posterolateral lumbar spine fusion. Analysis of Mayo Clinic series. J Bone Joint Surg 1972;54-A:1195-204.
12. Wood GW, Boyd RJ, Carothers TA, et al. The effect of pedicle screw/plate fixation on lumbar/lumbosacral autogenous bone graft fusion in patients with degenerative disc disease. Spine 1995;20:819-30.
13. Zdeblick TA. A prospective, randomized study of lumbar fusion. Spine 1993;18:983-91.
14. Larsen JM, Rimoldi RL, Capen DA, et al. Assessment of pseudarthrosis in pedicle screw fusion: A prospective study comparing plain radiographs, flexion/extension radiographs, CT scanning, and bone scintigraphy with operative findings. J Spinal Disord 1997;9:117-20.
15. Kuslich SD, Ulstrom CL, Griffith SL, et al. The Bagby and Kuslich method of lumbar interbody fusion. History, techniques, and 2-year follow-up results of a United States prospective, multicenter trial. Spine 1998;23:1267-78.
16. Dooris AP, Goel VK, Grosland NM, et al. Load-sharing between anterior and posterior elements in a lumbar motion segment implanted with an artificial disc. Spine 2001;26:E122-9.
17. Sairyo K, Goel VK, Masuda A, et al. Biomechanical rationale of endoscopic decompression for lumbar spondylolysis as an effective minimally invasive procedure-a study based on the finite element analysis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2005;48:119-22.
18. Sairyo K, Katoh S, Sasa T, et al. Athletes with unilateral spondylolysis are at risk of stress fracture at the contralateral pedicle and pars interarticularis: A clinical and biomechanical study. Am J Sports Med 2005;33:583-90.
19. Nachemoson AL, Schultz AB, Berkson MH. Mechanical properties of human lumbar spine motion segments. Influence of age, sex, disc level, and degeneration. Spine 1979;4:1-8.
20. White A, Panjabi M. Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1990.
21. Goel VK, Panjabi MM, eds. Roundtables in Spine Surgery; Spine Biomechanics: Evaluation of Motion Preservation Devices and Relevant Terminology. St. Louis, MO: Quality Medical Publishing; 2005.
22. Johnsson R, Selvik G, Stromqvist B, et al. Mobility of the lower lumbar spine after posterolateral fusion determined by roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. Spine 1990;15:347-50.
23. Glassman SD, Bazzi J, Puno RM, et al. The durability of small-diameter rods in lumbar spinal fusion. J Spinal Disord 2000;13:165-7.
24. Wetzel FT, Brustein M, Phillips FM, et al. Hardware failure in an unconstrained lumbar pedicle screw system. A 2-year follow-up study. Spine 1999;24:1138-43.
25. Bono CM, Lee CK. Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: Influence of techniques on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine 2004;29:455-63.
26. Cakir B, Richter M, Puhl W, et al. Reliability of motion measurements after total disc replacement: The spike and the fin method. Eur Spine J 2006;15:165-73.
27. Frobin W, Brinchmann P, Leivseth G, et al. Precision measurement of segmental motion from flexion-extension radiographs of the lumbar spine. Clin Biomech (Briston, Avon) 1996;11:457-65.