Do we need a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage to increase the stability of functional spinal unit when comparing unilateral and bilateral fixation?

Abstract

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion was an alternative to posterior lumbar interbody fusion for decompression surgeries. This study investigates the biomechanical responses of the unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixations with/without transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cages under axial compression, flexion, and torsional loads. Ovine vertebrae were used in this study. Cadavers, randomly divided into five, were intact control group, bilateral pedicle screw fixation group, bilateral pedicle screw fixation group with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage, unilateral pedicle screw fixation group, and unilateral pedicle screw fixation group with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage. Axial compression, flexion, and torsion tests were performed on specimens. All study groups provided higher stiffness and yield load values than control group under axial compression. Addition of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage to bilateral fixation increased the stiffness under axial compression. Moreover, additional use of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in unilateral fixation increased the yield load values under axial compression. Control group was the stiffest in flexion test. Placing a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage to both unilateral and bilateral fixations did not significantly change the stiffness values. Additional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage increased the yield moment of the bilateral fixation. In torsion test, control group had the highest stiffness and yield torque. The facet joints are the most important parts of the vertebrae on the stability. When comparing the bilateral and unilateral fixations with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion addition, the more facet preserving approach has significantly higher stability under axial compression, flexion, and torsion. Unilateral fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage can be said biomechanically stable and advantageous fixation system because of the advantage on the less facet and soft tissue resection compared to bilateral fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Keywords

Bilateral fixation unilateral fixation transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Park

Garton

Gala

et al . Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine 2004; 29: 1938–1944.

Levin

Hale

Bendo

JA.

Adjacent segment degeneration following spinal fusion for degenerative disc disease. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2007; 65: 29–36.

Schulte

Leistra

Bullmann

et al . Disc height reduction in adjacent segments and clinical outcome 10 years after lumbar 360 degrees fusion. Eur Spine J 2007; 16: 2152–2158.

Charles Malveaux

WMS

Sharan

. Adjacent segment disease after lumbar spinal fusion: a systematic review of the current literature. Semin Spine Surg 2011; 23: 266–274.

Teyfik

Cemile

The pullout performance of pedicle screws. Berlin: Springer, 2015.

Lee

Langrana

NA.

Lumbosacral spinal fusion. A biomechanical study. Spine 1984; 9: 574–581.

Schendel

Lewis

et al . Effect of immobilization and configuration on lumbar adjacent-segment biomechanics. J Spinal Disord 1993; 6: 99–105.

Nagata

Schendel

Transfeldt

et al . The effects of immobilization of long segments of the spine on the adjacent and distal facet force and lumbosacral motion. Spine 1993; 18: 2471–2479.

Lee

CK.

Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine 1988; 13: 375–377.

10.

Frymoyer

Hanley

Jr Howe

et al . A comparison of radiographic findings in fusion and nonfusion patients ten or more years following lumbar disc surgery. Spine 1979; 4: 435–440.

11.

Sapkas

Mavrogenis

Starantzis

et al . Outcome of a dynamic neutralization system for the spine. Orthopedics 2012; 35: 1497–1502.

12.

Chen

Charles

Bogorin

et al . Influence of 2 different dynamic stabilization systems on sagittal spinopelvic alignment. J Spinal Disord Tech 2011; 24: 37–43.

13.

Cabello

Cavanilles-Walker

Iborra

et al . The protective role of dynamic stabilization on the adjacent disc to a rigid instrumented level. An in vitro biomechanical analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2013; 133: 443–448.

14.

et al . Two-year follow-up results of the Isobar TTL semi-rigid rod system for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. J Clin Neurosci 2013; 20: 394–399.

15.

Deyo

Nachemson

Mirza

SK.

Spinal-fusion surgery—the case for restraint. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 722–726.

16.

Kim

Siemionow

Anderson

et al . The current state of minimally invasive spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg 2011; 93: 582–596.

17.

Suk

Lee

Kim

et al . Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spinal fusion. Spine 2000; 25: 1843–1847.

18.

Dahdaleh

Nixon

Lawton

et al . Outcome following unilateral versus bilateral instrumentation in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-center randomized prospective study. Neurosurg Focus 2013; 35: E13.

19.

Fernández-Fairen

Sala

Ramírez

et al . A prospective randomized study of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine 2007; 32: 395–401.

20.

Xue

Cai

Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine J 2012; 12: 209–215.

21.

Lin

et al . Minimally invasive unilateral pedicle screw fixation and lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. Orthopedics 2013; 36: 1071–1076.

22.

Shen

Zhang

et al . Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation for single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Clin Neurosci 2014; 21: 1612–1616.

23.

Xie

et al . Comparative study of unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthopedics 2012; 35: 1517–1523.

24.

Zhang

Sun

Zhao

et al . Unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disorders: a prospective randomised study. Int Orthop 2014; 38: 111–116.

25.

Lin

Yang

et al . Unilateral versus bilateral fixation for lumbar spinal fusion: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2014; 24: 247–255.

26.

Choi

Park

Kim

et al . Unilateral versus bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus 2013; 35: E11.

27.

Aoki

Yamagata

Nakajima

et al . Posterior migration of fusion cages in degenerative lumbar disease treated with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a report of three patients. Spine 2009; 34: 54–58.

28.

Aoki

Yamagata

Ikeda

et al . A prospective randomized controlled study comparing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques for degenerative spondylolisthesis: unilateral pedicle screw and 1 cage versus bilateral pedicle screws and 2 cages. J Neurosurg Spine 2012; 17: 153–159.

29.

Duncan

Bailey

RA.

An analysis of fusion cage migration in unilateral and bilateral fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 2013; 22: 439–445.

30.

Gologorsky

Skovrlj

Steinberger

et al . Increased incidence of pseudarthrosis after unilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with lumbar spondylosis: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2014; 21: 601–607.

31.

Ambati

Wright

Jr Lehman

Jr et al . Bilateral pedicle screw fixation provides superior biomechanical stability in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element study. Spine J 2015; 15: 1812–1822.

32.

Molinari

Saleh

Molinari

Jret al . Unilateral versus bilateral instrumentation in spinal surgery: a systematic review. Global Spine J 2015; 5: 185–194.

33.

Slucky

Brodke

Bachus

et al . Less invasive posterior fixation method following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical analysis. Spine J 2006; 6: 78–85.

34.

Kasai

Inaba

Kato

et al . Biomechanical study of the lumbar spine using a unilateral pedicle screw fixation system. J Clin Neurosci 2010; 13: 364–367.

35.

Wilke

Kettler

Wenger

et al . Anatomy of the sheep spine and its comparison to the human spine. Anat Rec 1997; 247: 542–555.

36.

Wilke

Kettler

Claes

LE.

Are sheep spines a valid biomechanical model for human spines?

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997; 22: 2365–2374.

37.

Harms

Rollinger

Die operative Behandlung der Spondylolisthese durch dorsale Aufrichtung und ventrale Verblockung. Z Orthop 1982; 120: 343–347.

38.

Potter

Freedman

Verwiebe

et al . Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005; 18: 337–346.

39.

Villavicencio

Burneikiene

Bulsara

et al . Perioperative complications in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior–posterior reconstruction for lumbar disc degeneration and instability. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006; 19: 92–97.

40.

Lauber

Schulte

Liljenqvist

et al . Clinical and radiologic 2–4-year results of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Spine 2006; 31: 1693–1698.

41.

Chen

Cheung

Wang

et al . Biomechanical analysis of unilateral fixation with interbody cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30(4): 92–96.

42.

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: 778–785.