Biomechanical effects of iatrogenic muscle-ligaments complex damage on adjacent segments following posterior lumbar interbody fusion: A finite element analysis
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2023
Biomechanical effects of iatrogenic muscle-ligaments complex damage on adjacent segments following posterior lumbar interbody fusion: A finite element analysis
To analyze the biomechanical effects of proximal iatrogenic muscle-ligaments complex (MLC) damage on adjacent segments following posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) by finite element (FE) analysis.
Methods:
The multifidus muscle force was loaded in the validated intact lumbosacral finite element model. Based on whether undergoing PLIF or the proximal MLC damage, three models were established. Range of motion (ROM) and the maximum von Mises (VM) stress of adjacent segments were analyzed, as well as the average muscle force and work capacity in four loading directions.
Results:
PLIF results in significant changes in ROM and stress. ROM changed significantly in the upper adjacent segment, the PLIF model changed the most in extension, and the largest change in the lower adjacent segment occurred after MLC damage. The VM stress of the upper adjacent segment occurred in extension of the PLIF model, and that of the lower adjacent segment occurred in rotation after MLC damage. In flexion, ROM, and stress of the damaged MLC fusion model were significantly increased compared with the normal and PLIF models, there was a stepwise amplification. The average muscle force comparison of three models was 5.8530, 12.3185, and 13.4670 N, respectively. The total work capacity comparison was close to that of muscle force.
Conclusion:
PLIF results in increased ROM and the VM stress of adjacent segments, the proximal MLC damage will aggravate this change. This may increase the risk of ASD and chronic low back pain. Preserving the proximal MLC reduces the biomechanical effects on adjacent segments.
SzpalskiMGunzburgR. Lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly: an overview. Eur Spine J2003; 12(Suppl 2): S170–S175.
2.
AnandjiwalaJSeoJYHaKY, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration after instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion: a prospective cohort study with a minimum five-year follow-up. Eur Spine J2011; 20(11): 1951–1960.
3.
LuKLiliangPCWangHK, et al. Reduction in adjacent-segment degeneration after multilevel posterior lumbar interbody fusion with proximal DIAM implantation. J Neurosurg Spine2015; 23(2): 190–196.
4.
JiangSLiW. Biomechanical study of proximal adjacent segment degeneration after posterior lumbar interbody fusion and fixation: a finite element analysis. J Orthop Surg Res2019; 14(1): 135.
5.
YunYIJeonIKimSW, et al. Risk factors for adjacent segment disease requiring reoperation after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with screw fixation: focus on paraspinal muscle, facet joint, and disc degeneration. Acta Neurochir2022; 164(3): 913–922.
6.
ParkPGartonHJGalaVC, et al. Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine2004; 29(17): 1938–1944.
7.
KimJYRyuDSPaikHK, et al. Paraspinal muscle, facet joint, and disc problems: risk factors for adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar fusion. Spine J2016; 16(7): 867–875.
8.
YeJYangSWeiZ, et al. Incidence and risk factors for adjacent segment disease after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases. Int J Gen Med2021; 14: 8185–8192.
9.
ChoKSKangSGYooDS, et al. Risk factors and surgical treatment for symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spine fusion. J Korean Neurosurg Soc2009; 46(5): 425–430.
10.
ChoiKCKimJSShimHK, et al. Changes in the adjacent segment 10 years after anterior lumbar interbody fusion for low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res2014; 472(6): 1845–1854.
11.
LiangJDongYZhaoH. Risk factors for predicting symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration requiring surgery in patients after posterior lumbar fusion. J Orthop Surg Res2014; 9: 97.
12.
GhasemiAA. Adjacent segment degeneration after posterior lumbar fusion: an analysis of possible risk factors. Clin Neurol Neurosurg2016; 143: 15–18.
13.
HyunSJKimYBKimYS, et al. Postoperative changes in paraspinal muscle volume: comparison between paramedian interfascial and midline approaches for lumbar fusion. J Korean Med Sci2007; 22(4): 646–651.
14.
LaiPLChenLHNiuCC, et al. Relation between laminectomy and development of adjacent segment instability after lumbar fusion with pedicle fixation. Spine2004; 29(22): 2527–2532; discussion 2532.
15.
KimWHLeeSHLeeDY. Changes in the cross-sectional area of multifidus and psoas in unilateral sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation. J Korean Neurosurg Soc2011; 50(3): 201–204.
16.
LiuHWuWLiY, et al. Protective effects of preserving the posterior complex on the development of adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine2013; 19(2): 201–206.
17.
PutzierMHartwigTHoffEK, et al. Minimally invasive TLIF leads to increased muscle sparing of the multifidus muscle but not the longissimus muscle compared with conventional PLIF-a prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine J2016; 16(7): 811–819.
18.
JiaJChenCWangP, et al. Comparison of adjacent segment degeneration after minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a minimum 5-year follow-up. Clin Spine Surg2023; 36: E45–E50.
19.
WangWPeiBPeiY, et al. Biomechanical effects of posterior pedicle fixation techniques on the adjacent segment for the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures: a biomechanical analysis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin2019; 22(13): 1083–1092.
20.
MacintoshJEBogdukN. The biomechanics of the lumbar multifidus. Clin Biomech1986; 1(4): 205–213.
21.
HillAV. The heat of activation and the heat of shortening in a muscle twitch. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci1949; 136(883): 195–211.
22.
RohlmannABurraNKZanderT, et al. Comparison of the effects of bilateral posterior dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis. Eur Spine J2007; 16(8): 1223–1231.
23.
YamamotoIPanjabiMMCriscoT, et al. Three-dimensional movements of the whole lumbar spine and lumbosacral joint. Spine1989; 14(11): 1256–1260.
24.
ErbulutDUZafarparandehIHassanCR, et al. Determination of the biomechanical effect of an interspinous process device on implanted and adjacent lumbar spinal segments using a hybrid testing protocol: a finite-element study. J Neurosurg Spine2015; 23: 200–208.
25.
LeeCHKimYELeeHJ, et al. Biomechanical effects of hybrid stabilization on the risk of proximal adjacent-segment degeneration following lumbar spinal fusion using an interspinous device or a pedicle screw-based dynamic fixator. J Neurosurg Spine2017; 27: 643–649.
26.
LeeKKTeoECQiuTX, et al. Effect of facetectomy on lumbar spinal stability under sagittal plane loadings. Spine2004; 29: 1624–1631.
27.
MerterAKaracaMOYazarT: Biomechanical effects of sequential resection of the posterior ligamentous complex on intradiscal pressure and resistance to compression forces. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc2019; 53: 502–506.
28.
TanQCLiuZXZhaoY, et al: Biomechanical comparison of four types of instrumentation constructs for revision surgery in lumbar adjacent segment disease: a finite element study. Comput Biol Med2021; 134: 104477.
29.
ParkMSMoonSHKimTH, et al. Paraspinal muscles of patients with lumbar diseases. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg2018; 79: 323–329.
30.
ChangMYParkYHaJW, et al. Paraspinal lean muscle mass measurement using spine MRI as a predictor of adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion: a propensity score-matched case-control analysis. Am J Roentgenol2019; 12: 1310–1317.
31.
DingJZKongCLiXY, et al. Different degeneration patterns of paraspinal muscles in degenerative lumbar diseases: a MRI analysis of 154 patients. Eur Spine J2022; 31: 764–773.
32.
MacDonaldDAMoseleyGLHodgesPW: The lumbar multifidus: does the evidence support clinical beliefs. Man Ther2006; 11: 254–263.
33.
DuanPGMummaneniPVGuinnJ, et al. Is the Goutallier grade of multifidus fat infiltration associated with adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar spinal fusion. J Neurosurg Spine2020; 34: 190–195.
34.
KumaranYShahAKatragaddaA, et al. Iatrogenic muscle damage in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and adjacent segment degeneration: a comparative finite element analysis of open and minimally invasive surgeries. Eur Spine J2021; 30: 2622–2630.
35.
HuangYPDuCFChengCK, et al. Preserving posterior complex can prevent adjacent segment disease following posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgeries: a finite element analysis. PLoS ONE2016; 11: e0166452.
36.
StreetJTAndrew GlennieRDeaN, et al. A comparison of the Wiltse versus midline approaches in degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine2016; 25(3): 332–338.
37.
TuliSMKapoorVJainAKJainS: Spinaplasty following lumbar laminectomy for multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis to prevent iatrogenic instability. Indian J Orthop2011; 45: 396–403.
38.
KimHJChunHJKangKT, et al: Finite element analysis for comparison of spinous process osteotomies technique with conventional laminectomy as lumbar decompression procedure. Yonsei Med J2015; 56: 146–153.
39.
ChenCYangCYangS, et al. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of modified unilateral open-door laminoplasty with posterior muscle-ligament complex preservation for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine2019; 44: 1697–1704.
