Biomechanical Comparison of Multilevel Stand-Alone Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion With Posterior Pedicle Screws: An In Vitro Study

James M Mok,Ye Lin,Julio Castillo Tafur,Roberto Leonardo Diaz,Farid Amirouche
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.2244734.367
Neurospine
Abstract:Objective: Lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) allows placement of large interbody cages while preserving ligamentous structures important for stability. Multiple clinical and biomechanical studies have demonstrated the feasibility of stand-alone LLIF in single-level fusion. We sought to compare the stability of 4-level stand-alone LLIF utilizing wide (26 mm) cages with bilateral pedicle screw and rod fixation. Methods: Eight human cadaveric specimens of L1-5 were included. Specimens were attached to a universal testing machine (MTS 30/G). Flexion, extension, and lateral bending were attained by applying a 200 N load at a rate of 2 mm/sec. Axial rotation of ± 8° of the specimen was performed at 2°/sec. Three-dimensional specimen motion was recorded using an optical motion-tracking device. Specimens were tested in 4 conditions: (1) intact, (2) bilateral pedicle screws and rods, (3) 26-mm stand-alone LLIF, (4) 26-mm LLIF with bilateral pedicle screws and rods. Results: Compared to the stand-alone LLIF, bilateral pedicle screws and rods had 47% less range of motion in flexion-extension (p < 0.001), 21% less in lateral bending (p < 0.05), and 20% less in axial rotation (p = 0.1). The addition of bilateral posterior instrumentation to the stand-alone LLIF resulted in decreases of all 3 planes of motion: 61% in flexion-extension ( p < 0.001), 57% in lateral bending (p < 0.001), 22% in axial rotation (p = 0.002). Conclusion: Despite the biomechanical advantages associated with the lateral approach and 26 mm wide cages, stand-alone LLIF for 4-level fusion is not equivalent to pedicle screws and rods.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?