Biomechanical analysis of various footprints of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion devices

Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2014, Pages

  Faizan, Ahmad ^a   Kiapour, Ali ^b   Kiapour, Ata M ^b   Goel, Vijay K ^b  

^a Custom Spine Inc   (United States)

^b MEDICAL COLLEGE OF OHIO   (United States)

Author keywords

biomechanics; finite element modeling; load sharing; lumbar spine; TLIF cage

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; LUMBAR SPINE; NERVE ENDING; ORTHOPEDIC EQUIPMENT; PEDICLE SCREW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; SPINE FUSION; TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION DEVICE;

BIOMECHANICAL PHENOMENA; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; SPINAL FUSION; STRESS, MECHANICAL;

EID: 84901820595     PISSN: 15360652     EISSN: 15392465     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182a11478     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Brantigan JW, Neidre A, Toohey JS. The Lumbar I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion with the variable screw placement system: 10-year results of a Food and Drug Administration clinical trial. Spine J. 2004;4:681-688. (Pubitemid 39497289
2. Brantigan JW, Steffee AD, Geiger JM. A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Mechanical testing. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991;16((suppl)):S277-S282.
3. Cloward RB. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion updated. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;193:16-19. (Pubitemid 15132171
4. Fraser RD. Interbody, posterior, and combined lumbar fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(suppl):167S-177S.
5. La Rosa G, Conti A, Cacciola F, et al. Pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis: does posterior lumbar interbody fusion improve outcome over posterolateral fusion J Neurosurg. 2003;99(suppl): 143-150.
6. Penta M, Fraser RD. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion. A minimum 10-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22: 2429-2434.
7. Yan DL, Pei FX, Li J, et al. Comparative study of PILF and TLIF treatment in adult degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2008; 17:1311-1316.
8. Zhao J, Wang X, Hou T, et al. One versus two BAK fusion cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion to L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis: a randomized, controlled prospective study in 25 patients with minimum two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27: 2753-2757.
9. Beutler WJ, Peppelman WC Jr. Anterior lumbar fusion with paired BAK standard and paired BAK Proximity cages: subsidence incidence, subsidence factors, and clinical outcome. Spine J. 2003;3: 289-293. (Pubitemid 38351738
10. Oxland TR, Lund T. Biomechanics of stand-alone cages and cages in combination with posterior fixation: a literature review. Eur Spine J. 2000;9(suppl 1):S95-S101.
11. McAfee PC. Interbody fusion cages in reconstructive operations on the spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:859-880.
12. Dennis S, Watkins R, Landaker S, et al. Comparison of disc space heights after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989;14:876-878.
13. Chen Z, Dang G, Zhou F. Foraminal and extraforaminal lumbar disc herniations. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 1995;33:285-288.
14. Weiner BK, Fraser RD. Spine update lumbar interbody cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998;23:634-640.
15. Benzel EC. Biomechanics of Spine Stabilization. Rolling Meadows, IL: American Association of Neurological Surgeons; 2001.
16. White. AA, Panjabi MM. Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1990.
17. McClellan JC, Ryschon KL, Stamm SL. Large footprint interbody device provides early postoperative pain control. Paper presented at: Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery, 2011; Las Vegas, NV.
18. Tan JS, Bailey CS, Dvorak MF, et al. Interbody device shape and size are important to strengthen the vertebra-implant interface. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:638-644.
19. Tsitsopoulos PP, Serhan H, Voronov LI, et al. Would an anatomically shaped lumbar interbody cage provide better stability An in vitro cadaveric biomechanical evaluation. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012;25:E240-E244.
20. Grauer JN, Biyani A, Faizan A, et al. Biomechanics of two-level Charite artificial disc placement in comparison to fusion plus singlelevel disc placement combination. Spine J. 2006;6:659-666. (Pubitemid 44752632
21. Ivanov AA, Kiapour A, Ebraheim NA, et al. Lumbar fusion leads to increases in angular motion and stress across sacroiliac joint: a finite element study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:E162-E169.
22. Kiapour A, Ambati D, Hoy RW, et al. Effect of graded facetectomy on biomechanics of dynesys dynamic stabilization system. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:E581-E819.
23. Kiapour A, Goel VK. Biomechanics of a novel lumbar total motion segment preservation system: a computational and in vitro study. Bonezone. 2009;8:86-90.
24. Kiapour A, Kiapour AM, Kodigudla M, et al. A biomechanical FE study of subsidence and migration tendencies in stand-alone fusion procedures - comparison of an in situ expandable device with a rigid device. J Spine. 2012;1:1-5.
25. Sairyo K, Sakai T, Yasui N, et al. Newly occurred L4 spondylolysis in the lumbar spine with pre-existence L5 spondylolysis among sports players: case reports and biomechanical analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129:1433-1439.
26. 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 (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26: E122-E129.
27. Goel VK, Monroe BT, Gilbertson LG, et al. Interlaminar shear stresses and laminae separation in a disc. Finite element analysis of the L3-L4 motion segment subjected to axial compressive loads. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20:689-698.
28. Kiapour A, Kiapour AM, Serhan H, et al. Effect of different fixation techniques on segmental kinematics and load sharing of lumbar spine: a FEM study. Paper presented at: ASME 2012 Summer Bioengineering Conference; June 20-23, 2012; Farjardo, Puerto Rico.
29. Ames CP, Acosta FL Jr, Chi J, et al. Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion performed at 1 and 2 levels. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:E562-E566.
30. Harris BM, Hilibrand AS, Savas PE, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: the effect of various instrumentation techniques on the flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29: E65-E70.
31. Voor MJ, Mehta S, Wang M, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of posterior and anterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques. J Spinal Disord. 1998;11:328-334. (Pubitemid 28380893
32. Cho W, Wu C, Mehbod AA, et al. Comparison of cage designs for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2008;23:979-985.
33. Lowe TG, Hashim S, Wilson LA, et al. A biomechanical study of regional endplate strength and cage morphology as it relates to structural interbody support. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29:2389-2394.
34. Fukuta S, Miyamoto K, Hosoe H, et al. Kidney-type intervertebral spacers should be located anteriorly in cantilever transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analyses of risk factors for spacer subsidence for a minimum of 2 years. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011; 24:189-195.
35. Grant JP, Oxland TR, Dvorak MF. Mapping the structural properties of the lumbosacral vertebral endplates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26:889-896.
36. Polikeit A, Ferguson SJ, Nolte LP, et al. Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis. Eur Spine J. 2003;12:413-420. (Pubitemid 37108413
37. Polikeit A, Ferguson SJ, Nolte LP, et al. The importance of the endplate for interbody cages in the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J. 2003; 12:556-561. (Pubitemid 38096058
38. Cook SD, Salkeld SL, Stanley T, et al. Biomechanical study of pedicle screw fixation in severely osteoporotic bone. Spine J. 2004;4: 402-408. (Pubitemid 38986981)