Lumbar degenerative disc diseases (DDDs) are the common causes of low back pain, leading to non-conservative treatments like fusion and non-fusion surgery as a last resort. Fusion surgery is the gold standard for addressing DDDs, where implants such as cages, pedicle screws and rods are used for posterior stabilization. Various finite element (FE) studies have reported using corrugated cage surface textures; some others have used flat textures for virtual implantation. No comparative studies have been reported on the biomechanical effects of fusion surgery under implantation with cages of varying surface textures. The present biomechanical study compares the mechanical behaviour of an L4–L5 segment implanted with cages of different surface textures. The surgical techniques used for implantation are posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. The virtual surgical models were developed from a previously validated intact lumbar spine FE model and simulated for physiological loading conditions. Compared to the flat cage implantation, a higher magnitude of stress was experienced by the cages and pedicle screw-rod systems under corrugated cage implantation. The maximum von Mises stress generated in the PLIF corrugated cage was 80.69% more than that observed in the flat cage. The maximum stresses in the corrugated cage were higher than those of the flat cage by 38.43%–80.69%, considering all the applied loading conditions. The findings of the study suggest that corrugated cage surface texture and suitable material selection may help in improving the long-term stability of cages.
DakwarEDeukmedjianARitterY, et al. Spinal pathology, conditions, and deformities. In: MageeDJZachazewskiJEQuillenWS, et al. (eds), Pathology and intervention in musculoskeletal rehabilitation. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2016, pp.584–611.
2.
DeyoRALoeserJDBigosSJ.Herniated lumbar intervertebral disk. Ann Intern Med1990; 112(8): 598–603.
3.
MobbsRPhanKMalhamG, et al. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg2015; 3: 2–18.
4.
HorváthGKoroknaiGAcsB, et al. Prevalence of low back pain and lumbar spine degenerative disorders. Questionnaire survey and clinical-radiological analysis of a representative Hungarian population. Int Orthop2010; 34(8): 1245–1249.
5.
ZhengCJChenJ.Disc degeneration implies low back pain. Theor Biol Med Model2015; 12(1): 24.
6.
MarcolongoMSarkarSGaneshN. 7.11 Trends in materials for spine surgery. In: DucheyneP (ed.), Comprehensive biomaterials II. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2017, pp.175–198.
7.
JoshiAMasseyCJKardunaA, et al. The effect of nucleus implant parameters on the compressive mechanics of the lumbar intervertebral disc: a finite element study. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater2009; 90 B(2): 596–607.
8.
TalukdarRGSaviourCMTiwarekarK, et al. Bone remodeling around solid and porous interbody cages in the lumbar spine. J Biomech Eng2022; 144(10): 1–12.
9.
AustevollIMHermansenEFagerlandMW, et al. Decompression with or without fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med2021; 385(6): 526–538.
10.
PradeepKPalB.Biomechanical and clinical studies on lumbar spine fusion surgery: a review. Med Biol Eng Comput2023; 61(3): 617–634.
11.
XueHTuYCaiM.Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine J2012; 12(3): 209–215.
12.
MásYGraciaLIbarzE, et al. Finite element simulation and clinical follow-up of lumbar spine biomechanics with dynamic fixations. PLoS One2017; 12(11): e0188328.
13.
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.
14.
ZhaoXDuLXieY, et al. Effect of lumbar lordosis on the adjacent segment in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis. World Neurosurg2018; 114: e114–e120.
15.
LundTOxlandTRJostB, et al. Interbody cage stabilisation in the lumbar spine: biomechanical evaluation of cage design, posterior instrumentation and bone density. J Bone Jt Surg1998; 80(2): 351–359.
16.
ChoWWuCMehbodAA, et al. Comparison of cage designs for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical study. Clin Biomech2008; 23(8): 979–985.
17.
ChenSHTaiCLLinCY, et al. Biomechanical comparison of a new stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion cage with established fixation techniques - a three-dimensional finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2008; 9(1): 10.
18.
ChiangM-FZhongZ-CChenC-S, et al. Biomechanical comparison of instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion with one or two cages by finite element analysis. Spine2006; 31(19): E682–E689.
19.
VadapalliSSairyoKGoelVK, et al. Biomechanical rationale for using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) spacers for lumbar interbody fusion - a finite element study. Spine2006; 31(26): E992–E998.
20.
CornefjordMByrödGBrisbyH, et al. A long-term (4- to 12-year) follow-up study of surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J2000; 9(6): 563–570.
21.
CheersGMWeimerLPNeuerburgC, et al. Advances in implants and bone graft types for lumbar spinal fusion surgery. Biomater Sci2024; 12(19): 4875–4902.
22.
MassaadEFatimaNKiapourA, et al. Polyetheretherketone versus titanium cages for posterior lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis and review of the literature. Neurospine2020; 17(2): 473–135.
23.
TorstrickFBSafranskiDLBurkusJK, et al. Getting PEEK to stick to bone: the development of porous PEEK for interbody fusion devices. Tech Orthop2017; 32(3): 158–166.
24.
SouslianFGPatelPD.Review and analysis of modern lumbar spinal fusion techniques. Br J Neurosurg2024; 38(1): 61–67.
25.
HuangCCBrenaKRTabarestaniTQ, et al. Minimally-invasive trans-facet lumbar interbody fusion using a dual-dimension expandable cage: preliminary results of a multi-institutional retrospective study. J Spine Surg2024; 10(3): 403–415.
26.
DonaldsonCSantroTAwadM, et al. 3D-printed titanium alloy cage in anterior and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spine disease. J Spine Surg2024; 10(1): 22–29.
27.
BehrbalkEUriOParksRM, et al. Fusion and subsidence rate of stand alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion using PEEK cage with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2. Eur Spine J2013; 22(12): 2869–2875.
28.
BounabiMBenabidYMessellekAC, et al. Design process of custom-fitted interbody cage for lumbar spinal fusion. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2017; 20(sup1): 27–28.
29.
PolikeitAFergusonSJNolteLP, et al. Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis. Eur Spine J2003; 12(4): 413–420.
30.
MorganEFBayraktarHHKeavenyTM.Trabecular bone modulus-density relationships depend on anatomic site. J Biomech2003; 36(7): 897–904.
31.
TalukdarRGMukhopadhyayKKDharaS, et al. Numerical analysis of the mechanical behaviour of intact and implanted lumbar functional spinal units: effects of loading and boundary conditions. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2021; 235(7): 792–804.
32.
ZhongZCWeiSHWangJP, et al. Finite element analysis of the lumbar spine with a new cage using a topology optimization method. Med Eng Phys2006; 28(1): 90–98.
33.
PradeepKPalB.Finite element analysis of an intact lumbar spine model: effects of loading under different coordinate systems. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2023; 237(7): 815–828.
34.
XuHJuWXuN, et al. Biomechanical comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with 1 or 2 cages by finite-element analysis. Neurosurg2013; 73(2 Suppl Operative): ons198–ons205.
35.
BiswasJKRanaMMajumderS, et al. Effect of two-level pedicle-screw fixation with different rod materials on lumbar spine: a finite element study. J Orthop Sci2018; 23(2): 258–265.
36.
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.
37.
YanYLiJYuJ, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of two fusion techniques based on finite element analysis: percutaneous endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Med Nov Technol Devices2022; 16: 100138.
38.
TsaiPIHsuCCChenSY, et al. Biomechanical investigation into the structural design of porous additive manufactured cages using numerical and experimental approaches. Comput Biol Med2016; 76: 14–23.
39.
AmbatiDVWrightEKLehmanRA, et al. Bilateral pedicle screw fixation provides superior biomechanical stability in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element study. Spine J2015; 15(8): 1812–1822.
40.
LiangZCuiJZhangJ, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of strategies for adjacent segment disease after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: is the extension of pedicle screws necessary?BMC Musculoskelet Disord2020; 21(1): 14.
41.
JiYZhangQSongY, et al. Biomechanical characteristics of 2 different posterior fixation methods of bilateral pedicle screws: a finite element analysis. Med2022; 101(36): E30419.
42.
GrantJPOxlandTRDvorakMF.Mapping the structural properties of the lumbosacral vertebral endplates. Spine2001; 26(8): 889–896.
43.
WangHWanYLiuX, et al. The biomechanical effects of Ti versus PEEK used in the PLIF surgery on lumbar spine: a finite element analysis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2021; 24(10): 1115–1124.
44.
CorsoKAKothariPCorradoK, et al. Early revision events among patients with a three dimensional (3D) printed cellular titanium or PEEK (polyetheretherketone) spinal cage for single-level lumbar spinal fusion. Expert Rev Med Devices2022; 19(2): 195–201.
45.
CanbulatN.Rehabilitation after surgery of the spinal deformity. Turk Neurosurg2014; 24: 107–114.
46.
Adl AminiDMoserMOezelL, et al. Fusion assessment in standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: 3D-printed titanium versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages. J Spine Surg2022; 8(3): 323–332.
