Comparison of rigid and semi-rigid instrumentation under acute load on vertebrae treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedures: An experimental study

Abstract

Rigid and semi-rigid fixations are investigated several times in order to compare their biomechanical stability. Interbody fusion techniques are also preferable for maintaining the sagittal balance by protecting the disk height. In this study, the biomechanical comparison of semi-rigid and rigid fixations with posterior lumbar interbody fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedures is conducted under trauma. There were four different test groups to analyze the effect of acute load on treated ovine vertebrae. First and second groups were fixed with polyetheretherketone rods and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages, respectively. Third and fourth groups were fixed with titanium rods and posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cages, respectively. The drop tests were conducted with 7 kg weight. There were six samples in each group so the drop test repeated 24 times in total. The test samples were photographed and X-rayed (laterally and anteroposteriorly) before and after drop test. Two fractures were observed on group 1. Conversely, there were no fractures observed for group 2. There were no anterior element fractures for both groups 1 and 2. However, one fracture seen on group 3 was anterior element fracture, whereas the other three were posterior element fractures. All three fractures were anterior element fractures for group 4. Treated vertebrae with polyetheretherketone rods and posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages showed the best durability to the drop tests among the groups. Semi-rigid fixation gave better results than rigid fixation according to failed segments. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages seem to be better option for semi-rigid fixation, however mentioned surgical disadvantages must be considered.

Keywords

Semi-rigid fixation rigid fixation posterior lumbar interbody fusion transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion polyetheretherketone rod posterior fusion drop mechanism fracture energy compression load load sharing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bagby

GW.

Arthrodesis by the distraction-compression method using a stainless steel implant. Orthopedics 1988; 11: 931–934.

Al Barbarawi

Audat

Allouh

MZ.

Analytical comparison study of the clinical and radiological outcome of spine fixation using posterolateral, posterior lumber interbody and transforaminal lumber interbody spinal fixation techniques to treat lumber spine degenerative disc disease. Scoliosis Disord 2015; 27: 10–17.

Liu

Deng

Long

et al . A comparative study of perioperative complications between transforaminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 2016; 25(5): 1575–1580.

Tang

Guan

et al . Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by finite element analysis. Neurosurgery 2013; 72 (1 Suppl Operative): 21–26.

Yan

Pei

et al . Comparative study of PILF and TLIF treatment in adult degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 2008; 17(10): 1311–1316.

Audat

Moutasem

Yousef

et al . Comparison of clinical and radiological results of posterolateral fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine. Singapore Med J 2012; 53(3): 183–187.

Sakeb

Ahsan

Comparison of the early results of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in symptomatic lumbar instability. Indian J Orthop 2013; 47(3): 255–263.

Cole

McCall

Schmidt

et al . Comparison of low back fusion techniques: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approaches. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2009; 2(2): 118–126.

DiPaola

Molinari

RW.

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2008; 16(3): 130–139.

10.

Fleege

Rickert

Rauschmann

The PLIF and TLIF techniques. Indication, technique, advantages, and disadvantages. Orthopade 2015; 44(2): 114–123.

11.

Korovessis

Papazisis

Lambiris

The role of rigid vs dynamic instrumentation for stabilization of the degenerative lumbosacral spine. Stud Health Technol Inform 2002; 91: 457–461.

12.

Colangeli

Barbanti Brodàno

Gasbarrini

et al . Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rods: short-term results in lumbar spine degenerative disease. J Neurosurg Sci 2015; 59(2): 91–96.

13.

Mavrogenis

Vottis

Triantafyllopoulos

et al . PEEK rod systems for the spine. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2014; 24(1): 111–116.

14.

Highsmith

Tumialán

Rodts

et al . Flexible rods and the case for dynamic stabilization. Neurosurg Focus 2007; 22(1): E11.

15.

Yeager

Cook

Cheng

BC.

In vitro comparison of dynesys, PEEK, and titanium constructs in the lumbar spine. Adv Orthop 2015; 2015: 895931.

16.

Gornet

Chan

Coleman

JC.

Biomechanical assessment of a PEEK rod system for semi-rigid fixation of lumbar fusion constructs. J Biomech Eng 2011; 133(8): 081009.

17.

Turner

Paller

Murrell

CB.

The mechanical effect of commercially pure titanium and polyetheretherketone rods on spinal implants at the operative and adjacent levels. Spine 2010; 35(21): E1076–E1082.

18.

Karakoyun

Özkaya

Okutan

et al . Biomechanical comparison of unilateral semi-rigid and dynamic stabilization on ovine vertebrae. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine 2015; 229(11): 778–785.

19.

Sarbello

Lipman

Hong

et al . Patient perception of outcomes following failed spinal instrumentation with polyetheretherketone rods and titanium rods. Spine 2010; 35(17): E843–E888.

20.

Ponnappan

Serhan

Zarda

et al . Biomechanical evaluation and comparison of polyetheretherketone rod system to traditional titanium rod fixation. Spine J 2009; 9(3): 263–267.

21.

Ahn

Chen

Lee

et al . Comparison of the load-sharing characteristics between pedicle-based dynamic and rigid rod devices. Biomed Mater 2008; 3(4): 044101.

22.

Özkaya

Demir

Yaman

et al . Experimental evaluation of the developmental mechanism underlying fractures at the adjacent segment. World Neurosurg 2016; 86: 199–209.

23.

Yasuhara

Takahashi

Kumamoto

et al . Proximal vertebral body fracture after 4-level fusion using l1 as the upper instrumented vertebra for lumbar degenerative disease: report of 2 cases with literature review. Acta Med Okayama 2013; 67: 197–202.

24.

Tender

GC.

Caudal vertebral body fractures following lateral interbody fusion in nonosteoporotic patients. Ochsner J 2014; 14: 123–130.

25.

Kumar

Baklanov

Chopin

Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J 2001; 10: 314–319.

26.

Okuda

Oda

Yamasaki

et al . Repeated adjacent-segment degeneration after posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2014; 20(5): 538–541.

27.

Okuda

Iwasaki

Miyauchi

et al . Risk factors for adjacent segment degeneration after PLIF. Spine 2004; 29: 1535–1540.

28.

Panjabi

Hoffman

Kato

et al . Superiority of incremental trauma approach in experimental burst fracture studies. Clin Biomech 2000; 15: 73–78.

29.

Kallemeier

Beaubien

Buttermann

et al . In vitro analysis of anterior and posterior fixation in an experimental unstable burst fracture model. J Spinal Disord Tech 2008; 21: 216–224.

30.

Magerl

Aebi

Gertzbein

et al . A comprehensive classification of thoracic and lumbar injuries. Eur Spine J 1994; 3: 184.