BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of spine disorders in industrialized environments has impaired the quality of life in the elder population. In an effort to relieve pain, physicians strive to improve treatment through the consideration of patient specific characteristics during preoperative planning of procedures such as spinal fusion.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims at quantifying aspects of spondylodesis to the loading and mobility of the utilized instrumentation, as the use of rigid vs. motion sparing materials as well as implantation angle and depth of the pedicle screws are still subject to controversy among surgeons.
METHODS: A fixation assembly was reverse engineered based on µCT measurements of the involved instrumentation. Two pedicle screws were connected with a rod, thus representing a mono-segmental fixation device. The pedicle screws were embedded in hexahedral structures simulated by bone properties. Upon validation and verification, the response of the model to a compressive and a torsional load was simulated in ANSYS 14, while altering the implantation depth and insertion angle of the pedicle screws along with the rod material.
RESULTS: The mobility of the instrumentation was drastically increased (by up to 390%) when PEEK rods were used in place of traditional Ti ones, a tendency observed at varying extent for all simulated scenarios. Shallow implantation induced a slight stress increase (∼21%) on the implant and a notable distressing of the bony tissue (∼44%), whereas inclined screw positioning was overall beneficial to the developing stress fields in both, with bone profiting a max. stress release of ∼15% during the application of torsion.
CONCLUSIONS: The investigation presented refined insight into the biomechanical response of a spinal fusion device. As expected, rigid fixation seems preferable in fusion oriented instrumentation whereas semi rigid devices should be employed for non-fusion applications. Shallow implantation resulted in a slight posterior offset of the stabilization device, which could be beneficial in the treatment of osteoporotic patients.
RajaeeS.S.BaeH.W.KanimL.E. and DelamarterR.B., Spinal fusion in the united states: Analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008, Spine37(1) (2012), 67–76.
2.
ChoK.J.SukS.I.ParkS.R.KimJ.H.KangS.B.KimH.S. and OhS.J., Risk factors of sagittal decompensation after long posterior instrumentation and fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis, Spine35(17) (2012), 1595–1601.
3.
WedemeyerM.ParentS.MaharA.OdellT.SwimmerT. and NewtonP., Titanium versus stainless steel for anterior spinal fusions: An analysis of rod stress as a predictor of rod breakage during physiologic loading in a bovine model, Spine32 (2007), 42–48.
4.
HuangR.C.GirardiF.P.LimM.R. and CammisaF.P., Advantages and disadvantages of nonfusion technology in spine surgery, Orthop. Clin. North Am.36(3) (2005), 263–269.
5.
SenguptaD.K. and HerkowitzH.N., Pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilization: Literature review, Adv. Orthop.2012 (2012), Article ID 424268.
6.
QiL.LiM.ZhangS.XueJ. and SiH., Comparative effectiveness of PEEK rods versus titanium alloy rods in lumbar fusion: A preliminary report, Acta Neurochir.155(7) (2013), 1187–1193.
7.
MoumeneM. and AfshariP., Biomechanical comparison of rigid vs. semi-rigid rods in spinal fusion constructs, in: EuroSpine 2011, Milan, Italy, 19–21 October 2011, 2011.
8.
BarreyC.Y.PonnappanR.K.SongJ. and VaccaroA.R., Biomechanical evaluation of pedicle screw-based dynamic stabilization devices for the lumbar spine: A systematic review, SAS Journal2(4) (2008), 159–170.
9.
NiosiC.A.ZhuQ.A.WilsonD.C.KeynanO.WilsonD.R. and OxlandT.R., Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the dynesys dynamic stabilization system: An in vitro study, Eur. Spine J.15(6) (2008), 913–922.
10.
FaizanA.GoelV.K.BiyaniA.GarfinS.R. and BonoC.M., Adjacent level effects of bi level disc replacement, bi level fusion and disc replacement plus fusion in cervical spine – A finite element based study, Clin. Biomech.27(3) (2012), 226–233.
11.
RohlmannA.BurraN.K.ZanderT. and BergmannG., 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 J.16(8) (2007), 1223–1231.
12.
WeinsteinJ.N.RydevikB.L. and RauschningW., Anatomic and technical considerations of pedicle screw fixation, Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res.284 (1992), 34–46.
13.
LópezS.G.VegaE.U.De la Garza CastroO. and OmañaR.E.E., Morphometry of pedicle and vertebral body in a mexican population by CT and fluroscopy, Int. J. Morphol.27(4) (2009), 1299–1303.
14.
EdwardsW.T.ZhengY.FerraraL.A. and YuanH.A., Structural features and thickness of the vertebral cortex in the thoracolumbar spine, Spine26(2) (2001), 218–225.
15.
TsouknidasA.MaliarisG.SavvakisS. and MichailidisN., Anisotropic post-yield response of cancellous bone simulated by stress–strain curves of bulk equivalent structures, Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Engin. (2013). doi:10.1080/10255842.2013.849342.
16.
PanjabiM.M.OxlandT.R.YamamotoI. and CriscoJ.J., Mechanical behavior of the human lumbar and lumbosacral spine as shown by three-dimensional load–displacement curves, J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.76 (1994), 413–424.
17.
TsouknidasA.MichailidisN.SavvakisS.AnagnostidisK.BouzakisK.D. and KapetanosG., A finite element model technique to determine the mechanical response of a lumbar spine segment under complex loads, J. Appl. Biomech.28(4) (2012), 448–456.
18.
WilkeH.J.KettlerA.WengerK.H. and ClaesL.E., Anatomy of the sheep spine and its comparison to the human spine, Anat. Rec.247(4) (1997), 542–555.
19.
GornetM.F.ChanF.W.ColemanJ.C.MurrellB.NockelsR.P.TaylorB.A.LanmanT.H. and OchoaJ.A., Biomechanical assessment of a PEEK rod system for semi-rigid fixation of lumbar fusion constructs, J. Biomech. Eng.133(8) (2011), 081009.
20.
VicecontiM.OlsenS.NolteL.P. and BurtonK., Extracting clinically relevant data from finite element simulations, Clin. Biomech.20 (2005), 451–454.
21.
TsouknidasA.SavvakisS.AsaniotisY.AnagnostidisK.LontosA. and MichailidisN., The effect of kyphoplasty parameters on the dynamic load transfer within the lumbar spine considering the response of a bio-realistic spine segment, Clin. Biomech.28(9,10) (2013), 949–955.
22.
ErdemirA.McLeanS.HerzogW. and van den BogertA.J., Model-based estimation of muscle forces exerted during movements, Clin. Biomech.22(2) (2007), 131–154.
23.
WuZ.NassarS.A. and YangX., Pullout performance of self-tapping medical screws, J. Biomech. Eng.133(11) (2011), 111002.
24.
KantelhardtS.R.BockC.H.LarsenJ.BockermannV.SchillingerW.RohdeV. and GieseA., Intraosseous ultrasound in the placement of pedicle screws in the lumbar spine, Spine34(4) (2009), 400–407.
25.
TeoE.C. and LeeK.K., An accurately represented finite element model of lumbar motion segment (L2–L3), in: Proc. Int. Conf. Biomedical Engineering, 2002, pp. 161–163.
26.
GoelV.K.KimY.E.LimH. and WeinstenJ.N., An analytical investigation of the mechanics of spinal instrumentation, Spine13 (1988), 1003–1011.
27.
MaimanD.J.KumaresanS.YoganandanN. and PintarF.A.F.A., Biomechanical effect of anterior cervical spine fusion on adjacent segments, Biomed. Mater. Eng.9 (1999), 27–38.
28.
VadapalliS.SairyoK.GoelV.K.RobonM.BiyaniA.KhandhaA. and EbraheimN.A., Biomechanical rationale for using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) spacers for lumbar interbody fusion – A finite element study, Spine31(26) (2006), E992–E998.
