Biomechanical Evaluation of Four Surgical Scenarios of Lumbar Fusion with Hyperlordotic Interbody Cage: A Finite Element Study

Zhenjun Zhang,Guy R. Fogel,Zhenhua Liao,Yitao Sun,Xuejun Sun,Weiqiang Liu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/bme-181004
2018-01-01
Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering
Abstract:BACKGROUND Lumbar spinal fusion in the interbody space is augmented with interbody fusion cages to provide structural support while arthrodesis occurs. Subsidence is a serious complication of interbody fusion. However, the biomechanical influence of anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL) and pedicle screws on subsidence has not been fully understood. OBJECTIVE To investigate biomechanical effects of the hyperlordotic cages in different surgical conditions using finite element analysis. METHODS Four surgical finite element (FE) models were constructed by inserting 15 degree lordosis cage at the L3-L4 disc space. The four surgical conditions were ALL intact (M1), ALL resected (M2), ALL intact and bilateral pedicle screws (M3), and ALL resected and bilateral pedicle screws (M4). Follow loads were applied at the L2 vertebral body while the inferior surface of L5 was fixed. FEA was implemented to simulate the four motion modes and biomechanical properties of four fusion scenarios with hyperlordotic interbody cage were compared. RESULTS The range of motion (ROM) and facet joint force (FJF) at L3-L4 decreased significantly after fusion during all the motion modes. The cage stress and endplate stress at L3-L4 increased significantly after fusion during all the motion modes. The cage stress and endplate stress at L3-L4 for M3 and M4 were smaller than that for M1 and M2 during all the motion modes. The FJF at L3-L4 for M3 and M4 were smaller than that for M1 and M2 during extension, bending, and rotation. CONCLUSIONS ALL has little effect on the biomechanics after lumbar fusion with hyperlordotic interbody cage. The bilateral pedicle screws significantly decreased the stress in cage, stress in endplate at L3-L4, and lowered facet contact force except for flexion mode. The implication is that the supplemental bilateral pedicle screws are recommended whether or not the ALL is resected.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?