Finite Element Modeling for Biomechanical Comparisons of Multilevel Transforaminal, Posterior, and Lateral Lumbar Approaches to Interbody Fusion Augmented with Posterior Instrumentation.

OBJECTIVE: Verifying the intervertebral stability of each intervertebral fusion procedure, including transforaminal, posterior, and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF, PLIF, and LLIF, respectively), and the ratio of stress on the rods and pedicle screws during initial fixation may help select a fixation procedure that reduces the risk of mechanical complications, including rod fracture and screw loosening. Thus, we aimed to assess whether these procedures could prevent mechanical complications. METHODS: Using the finite element method (FEM), we designed 4 surgical models constructed from L2-5 as follows: posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), TLIF, PLIF, and LLIF models. Bilateral rods and each pedicle screw stress were tracked and calculated as Von Mises stress (VMS) for comparison among the PLF and other 3 interbody fusion models during flexion, extension, and side-bending movements. RESULTS: The lowest rod VMS was LLIF, followed by PLIF, TLIF, and PLF in flexion and side bending movements. Compared with PLF, intervertebral fixation significantly reduced stress on the rods. No remarkable differences were observed in extension movements in each surgical procedure. A tendency for higher pedicle screw VMS was noted at the proximal and distal ends of the fixation ranges, including L2 and L5 screws for each procedure in all motions. Intervertebral fixation significantly reduced stress on the L2 and L5 screws, particularly in LLIF. CONCLUSIONS: Stress on the rods and pedicle screws in the LLIF model was the lowest compared with that induced by other intervertebral fusion procedures. Therefore, LLIF may reduce mechanical complications occurrence, including rod fracture and screw loosening.

Load Distribution in Dorsally-Angulated Distal Radius Deformity Using Finite Element Analysis.

PURPOSE: The load axis of the carpals is located on the volar side of the normal distal radius. A volar lunate facet fracture (VLFF) is exposed to volar-shearing stress, which can cause volar displacement of the carpus. A previous biomechanical study reported that the load at the scaphoid fossa was located more dorsally and the pressure at the lunate fossa decreased in a dorsally-angulated model. However, the distal radius load distribution for various volar tilts remains unclear. We speculate that if the volar tilt decreases, the load distribution moves dorsally and decreases the stress on the VLFF. Therefore, we analyzed a dorsally-angulated distal radius model to evaluate changes in the load distribution using finite element analysis. METHODS: A 3-dimensional finite element wrist model was developed using computed tomography images. The ligaments were modeled as tension-only spring elements. We considered the intact wrist model for a volar tilt of 15° and created 5 additional models for volar tilts of 10°, 5°, 0°, -5°, and -10°. RESULTS: As the dorsal angulation increased, the stress distribution moved from volar to dorsal and from the lunate fossa toward the scaphoid fossa. The maximum stress on the volar lunate facet was reduced as volar tilt decreased. The maximum stress was higher on the lunate fossa for volar tilts from 15° to 5°. In contrast, the maximum stress was higher on the scaphoid fossa for volar tilts of ≤0°. CONCLUSIONS: Load transmission moved from volar to dorsal and from the lunate fossa to the scaphoid fossa when the volar tilt decreased. Therefore, a decrease in the volar tilt would reduce the load on the VLFF. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides surgeons accurate knowledge regarding load distribution of the distal radius for various volar tilts that could be helpful in treating patients with VLFFs.

Comparison of the Susceptibility to Implant Failure in the Lateral, Posterior, and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: There are several techniques for lumbar interbody fusion, and implant failure following lumbar interbody fusion can be troublesome. This study aimed to compare the stress in posterior implant and peri-screw vertebral bodies among lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and to select the technique that is least likely to cause implant failure. METHODS: We created an intact L3-L5 model and simulated the LLIF, PLIF, and TLIF techniques at L4-L5 using finite element methods. All models at the lower portion of L5 were fixed and imposed a preload of 400 N and a moment of 7.5 Nm on the upper portion of L3 to simulate flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. We investigated the peak stresses and stress concentration in the posterior implant and peri-screw vertebral bodies for the LLIF, PLIF, and TLIF techniques. RESULTS: The extension, flexion, bending, and rotation peak stresses and stress concentration in the posterior implant, as well as the peri-screw vertebral bodies, were the lowest in LLIF, followed by PLIF and TLIF. CONCLUSIONS: It was found that implant failure was least likely to occur in LLIF, followed by PLIF and TLIF. Hence, surgeons should be aware of these factors when selecting an appropriate surgical technique and be careful for implant failure during postoperative follow-up.

Comparison of Hybrid Posterior Fixation and Conventional Open Posterior Fixation Combined with Multilevel Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Adult Spinal Deformity.

We compared radiological and clinical outcomes between multilevel lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) + hybrid posterior fixation (PF) and multilevel LLIF + conventional open PF in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD). Patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery for ASD in a single institution between 2014 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Fifty-six patients (hybrid PF, 30; open PF, 26) who underwent ASD correction surgery were enrolled between 2014 and 2018. We evaluated patients' demographics, clinical outcomes, and radiographical parameters in each group. There was significantly less estimated blood loss in the hybrid PF group (662.8 mL vs. 1088.8 mL; p = 0.012). The CRP level 7 days after surgery was significantly lower in the hybrid PF group (2.9 mg/dL vs. 4.3 mg/dL; p = 0.035). There was no significant difference between the two groups in other demographic variables, visual analog scores for back pain and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, coronal Cobb angle, lumbar lordosis, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch, and sagittal vertical axis. There was a significantly higher percentage of major complications in the open PF group (42.3% vs. 13.3%; p = 0.039). Thus, LLIF + hybrid PF for ASD corrective surgery may be comparable to LLIF + open PF in terms of clinical and radiographic outcomes.