Biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral pedicle screws fixation for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion after decompressive surgery - A finite element analysis

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Volumn 13, Issue , 2012, Pages

  Chen, Shih Hao ^a   Lin, Shang Chih ^b   Tsai, Wen Chi ^c   Wang, Chih Wei ^b   Chao, Shih Heng ^d  

^a TZU CHI UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Taiwan)

^c Han Chiung Clinics   (Taiwan)

^d NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Contralateral facet screw; Finite element analysis; Pedicle screw fixation; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BILATERAL PEDICLE SCREW FIXATION; DECOMPRESSION SURGERY; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KINEMATICS; LUMBAR SPINE; PEDICLE SCREW; RANGE OF MOTION; SPINE FUSION; SPINE SURGERY; TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNILATERAL PEDICLE SCREW FIXATION;

BIOMECHANICS; BONE SCREWS; DECOMPRESSION, SURGICAL; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SPINAL FUSION;

EID: 84861003093     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712474     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-72     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial. Brantigan JW, Steffee AD, Lewis ML, Quinn LM, Persenaire JM, Spine 2000 25 1437 1446 10.1097/00007632-200006010-00017 10828927 (Pubitemid 30353830)
2. Four-year follow-up results of lumbar spine arthrodesis using the Bagby and Kuslich lumbar fusion cage. Kuslich SD, Danielson G, Dowdle JD, Sherman J, Fredrickson B, Yuan H, Griffith SL, Spine 2000 25 2656 2562 10.1097/00007632- 200010150-00018 11034652
3. The relative importance of vertebral bone density and disc degeneration in spinal flexibility and interbody implant performance. Oxland TR, Lund T, Jost B, Cripton P, Lippuner K, Jaeger P, Nolte LP, Spine 1996 21 2558 2569 10.1097/00007632-199611150-00005 8961443 (Pubitemid 26419092)
4. Cage: designs and concepts. Steffen T, Tsantrizos A, Fruth I, Eur Spine J 2000 9 89 S94 10.1007/PL00010027 10766063
5. Biologic factors affecting spinal fusion and bone regeneration. Boden S, Sumner D, Spine 1995 20 102 S112 10.1097/00007632-199512151-00006
6. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Lin PM, Cautilli RA, Joyce MF, Clin Orthop Related Res 1983 180 154 168 (Pubitemid 14233107)
7. Comparison of the biomechanical effects of posterior and anterior spine-stabilizing implants. Rohlmann A, Zander T, Bergmann G, Eur Spine J 2005 14 445 453 10.1007/s00586-004-0784-3 15717191 (Pubitemid 40922192)
8. Segmental stability and compressive strength of posterior lumbar interbody fusion implants. Tsantrizos A, Baramki HG, Zeidman S, Steffen T, Spine 2000 25 1899 1907 10.1097/00007632-200008010-00007 10908932 (Pubitemid 30626068)
9. Die operative Behandlung der Spondylolisthese durch dorsale Aufrichtung und ventrale Verblockung. Harms JG, Rollinger H, Z Orthop 1982 120 343 347 10.1055/s-2008-1051624 7113376
10. Unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and bilateral anterior-column fixation with two Brantigan I/F cages per level: clinical outcomes during a minimum 2-year follow-up period. Taneichi H, Suda K, Kajino T, Matsumura A, Moridaira H, Kaneda K, J Neurosurg Spine 2006 4 198 205 10.3171/spi.2006.4.3.198 16572618 (Pubitemid 47325470)
11. Perioperative complications in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior reconstruction for lumbar disc degeneration and instability. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Bulsara KR, Thramann JJ, J Spinal Disord Tech 2006 19 92 97 10.1097/01.bsd.0000185277.14484.4e 16760781 (Pubitemid 44284152)
12. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients. Potter BK, Freedman BA, Verwiebe EG, Hall JM, Polly DW, Kuklo TR, J Spinal Disord Tech 2005 18 337 346 10.1097/01.bsd.0000166642.69189.45 16021015 (Pubitemid 44378151)
13. Clinical and radiologic 2-4-year results of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Lauber S, Schulte TL, Liljenqvist U, Halm H, Hackenberg L, Spine 2006 31 1693 1698 10.1097/01.brs.0000224530.08481.4e 16816765 (Pubitemid 43999967)
14. Minimally-invasive technique for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Ozgur BM, Yoo K, Rodriguez G, Taylor WR, Eur Spine J 2005 14 887 894 10.1007/s00586-005-0941-3 16151713 (Pubitemid 41789828)
15. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, Foley K, Neurosurg Focus 2006 20 6 16819814
16. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Peng CWB, Yue WM, Poh SY, Mphyty WY, Tan SB, Spine 2009 34 1385 1389 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a4e3be 19478658
17. Less invasive posterior fixation method following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical analysis. Slucky AV, Brodke DS, Bachus KN, Droge JA, Braun JT, Spine J 2006 6 78 85 10.1016/j.spinee.2005.08.003 16413452 (Pubitemid 43079179)
18. Biomechanical analysis of unilateral fixation with interbody cages. Chen HH, Cheung HH, Wang WK, Li Allen, Li KC, Spine 2005 30 92 E96 10.1097/01.brs.0000153703.80747.16 15706329
19. Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Lee CK, Spine 1988 13 375 377 10.1097/00007632-198803000-00029 3388124
20. Prediction of mechanical behaviors at interfaces between bone and two interbody cages of lumbar spine segments. Kim Y, Spine 2001 26 1437 1442 10.1097/00007632-200107010-00010 11458147 (Pubitemid 32606814)
21. Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis. Polikeit A, Ferguson SJ, Nolte LP, Orr TE, Eur Spine J 2003 12 413 420 10.1007/s00586-002-0505-8 12955610 (Pubitemid 37108413)
22. Effects of charité artificial disc on the implanted and adjacent spinal segments mechanics using a hybrid testing protocol. Goel VK, Grauer JN, Patel TCh, Biyani A, Sairyo K, Vishnubhotla S, Matyas A, Cowgill I, Shaw M, Long R, Dick D, Panjabi MM, Serhan H, Spine 2005 30 2755 2764 10.1097/01.brs. 0000195897.17277.67 16371899 (Pubitemid 43011036)
23. Multidirectional testing of one- and two-level ProDisc-L versus simulated fusions. Panjabi MM, Henderson G, Abjornson C, Yue J, Spine 2007 32 1311 1319 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318059af6f 17515820 (Pubitemid 46791450)
24. Application of a new calibration method for a three-dimensional finite element model of a human lumbar annulus fibrosus. Schmidt H, Heuer F, Simon U, Kettler A, Rohlmann A, Claes L, Wilke HH, Clin Biomech 2006 21 337 344 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.12.001 (Pubitemid 43276386)
25. Stress analysis of the disc adjacent to interbody fusion in lumbar spine. Chen CS, Cheng CK, Liu CL, Lo WH, Med Eng Phys 2001 23 483 491 11574255
26. Biomechanical comparison between lumbar disc arthroplasty and fusion. Chen SH, Zhong ZC, Chen CS, Chen WJ, Hung CH, Med Eng Phys 2009 31 244 253 10.1016/j.medengphy.2008.07.007 18760654
27. Biomechanical comparison of instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion with one or two cages by finite element analysis. Chiang MF, Zhong ZC, Chen CS, Spine 2006 31 682 E689 10.1097/01.brs.0000232714.72699.8e 16946641 (Pubitemid 44337844)
28. Load and displacement controlled finite element analyses on fusion and non-fusion spinal implants. Zhong ZC, Chen SH, Hung CH, Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 2009 223 143 157 10.1243/09544119JEIM476
29. Influence of a follower load on intradiscal pressure and intersegmental rotation of the lumbar spine. Rohlmann A, Neller S, Claes L, Bergmann G, Wilke HJ, Spine 2001 26 557 E561 10.1097/00007632-200112150-00014 11740371
30. Three-dimensional movement of the whole lumbar spine and lumbosacral joint. Yamamoto I, Panjabi MM, Crisco T, Oxland TR, Spine 1989 14 1256 1260 10.1097/00007632-198911000-00020 2603060 (Pubitemid 20036751)
31. Mechanical behavior of the human lumbar and lumbosacral spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. Panjabi MM, Oxland TR, Yamamoto I, Crisco JJ, J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994 76 413 424 8126047 (Pubitemid 24138935)
32. Mechanical response of a lumbar motion segment in axial torque alone and combined with compression. Shirazi-Adl A, Ahmed AM, Shrivastava SC, Spine 1986 11 914 927 10.1097/00007632-198611000-00012 3824069 (Pubitemid 17012170)
33. Analysis of squat and stoop dynamic liftings: muscle forces and internal spinal loads. Bazrgari B, Shirazi-Adl A, Arjmand N, Eur Spine J 2007 16 5 687 699 10.1007/s00586-006-0240-7 17103232 (Pubitemid 46763996)
34. Muscle force evaluation and the role of posture in human lumbar spine under compression. Shirazi-Adl A, Sadouk S, Parnianpour M, Pop D, El-Rich M, Eur Spine J 2002 11 6 519 526 10.1007/s00586-002-0397-7 12522708 (Pubitemid 35435861)
35. Effect of the cord pretension of the Dynesys dynamic stabilisation system on the biomechanics of the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis. Liu CL, Zhong ZC, Hsu HW, Shih SL, Wang ST, Hung C, Chen CS, Eur Spine J 2011 20 11 1850 1858 10.1007/s00586-011-1817-3 21523456
36. Test protocols for evaluation of spinal implants. Goel VK, Panjabi MM, Patwardhan AG, Dooris AP, Serhan H, J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006 88 103 109 10.2106/JBJS.E.01363 16595454
37. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with ipsilateral pedicle screw and contralateral facet screw fixation. Jang JS, Lee SH, J Neurosurg Spine 2005 3 218 223 10.3171/spi.2005.3.3.0218 16235705
38. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using unilateral pedicle screws and a translaminar screw. Sethi A, Lee S, Vaidya R, Eur Spine J 2009 18 430 434 10.1007/s00586-008-0825-4 19015896
39. Effects of rigidity of an internal fixation device: a comprehensive biomechanical investigation. Goel VK, Lim TH, Gwon J, Spine 1991 16 155 S161 10.1097/00007632-199103001-00023 2028332
40. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: the effect of various instrumentation techniques on the flexibility of the lumbar spine. Harris BM, Hilibrand AS, Savas PE, Spine 2005 30 562 E566 10.1097/01.brs.0000180505.80347. b1 16205329
41. Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spinal fusion. Suk KS, Lee HM, Kim NH, Spine 2000 25 1843 1847 10.1097/00007632- 200007150-00017 10888955 (Pubitemid 30469664)
42. Do bending, twisting, and diurnal fluid changes in the disc affect the propensity to prolapse? A viscoelastic finite elements model. Lu YM, Hutton WC, Gharpuray VM, Spine 1996 21 2570 2579 10.1097/00007632-199611150-00006 8961444 (Pubitemid 26419093)