Biomechanical investigation of the hybrid lumbar fixation technique with traditional and cortical bone trajectories in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: finite element analysis
Ying Huang,Abulikemu Maimaiti,Yiming Tian,Zhengrong Li,Alafate Kahaer,Paerhati Rexiti
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-04027-6
2023-07-31
Abstract:Objective: To compare the biomechanical performance of the hybrid lumbar fixation technique with the traditional and cortical bone trajectory techniques using the finite element method. Methods: Four adult wet lumbar spine specimens were provided by the Department of Anatomy and Research of Xinjiang Medical University, and four L1-S1 lumbar spine with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) models at L4-L5 segment and four different fixation techniques were established: bilateral traditional trajectory screw fixation (TT-TT), bilateral cortical bone trajectory screw fixation (CBT-CBT), hybrid CBT-TT (CBT screws at L4 and TT screws at L5) and TT-CBT (TT screws at L4 and CBT screws at L5). The range of motion (ROM) of the L4-L5 segment, von Mises stress of cage, internal fixation, and rod were compared in flexion, extension, left and right bending, and left and right rotation. Results: Compared with the TT-TT group, the TT-CBT group exhibited lower ROM of L4-L5 segment, especially in left-sided bending; the CBT-TT group had the lowest ROM of L4-L5 segment in flexion and extension among the four fixation methods. Compared with the CBT-CBT group, the peak cage stress in the TT-CBT group was reduced by 9.9%, 18.1%, 21.5%, 23.3%, and 26.1% in flexion, left bending, right bending, left rotation, and right rotation conditions, respectively, but not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The peak stress of the internal fixation system in the TT-CBT group was significantly lower than the other three fixation methods in all five conditions except for extension, with a statistically significant difference between the CBT-TT and TT-CBT groups in the left rotation condition (P = 0.017). In addition, compared with the CBT-CBT group, the peak stress of the rod in the CBT-TT group decreased by 34.8%, 32.1%, 28.2%, 29.3%, and 43.0% under the six working conditions of flexion, extension, left bending, left rotation, and right rotation, respectively, but not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Compared with the TT-TT and CBT-CBT fixation methods in TLIF, the hybrid lumbar fixation CBT-TT and TT-CBT techniques increase the biomechanical stability of the internal fixation structure of the lumbar fusion segment to a certain extent and provide a corresponding theoretical basis for further development in the clinic.