Biomechanical effect of proximal multifidus injury on adjacent segments during posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element study.

BACKGROUND: Adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) is a common complication of lumbar interbody fusion; the paraspinal muscles significantly maintain spinal biomechanical stability. This study aims to investigate the biomechanical effects of proximal multifidus injury on adjacent segments during posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). METHODS: Data from a lumbosacral vertebral computed tomography scan of a healthy adult male volunteer were used to establish a normal lumbosacral vertebral finite element model and load the muscle force of the multifidus. A normal model, an L4/5 PLIF model (PFM) based on a preserved proximal multifidus, a total laminectomy PLIF model (TLPFM), and a hemi-laminectomy PLIF model based on a severed proximal multifidus were established, respectively. The range of motion (ROM) and maximum von Mises stress of the upper and lower adjacent segments were analyzed along with the total work of the multifidus muscle force. RESULTS: This model verified that the ROMs of all segments with four degrees of freedom were similar to those obtained in previous research data, which validated the model. PLIF resulted in an increased ROM and maximum von Mises stress in the upper and lower adjacent segments. The ROM and maximum von Mises stress in the TLPFM were most evident in the upper adjacent segment, except for lateral bending. The ROM of the lower adjacent segment increased most significantly in the PFM in flexion and extension and increased most significantly in the TLPFM in lateral bending and axial rotation, whereas the maximum von Mises stress of the lower adjacent segment increased the most in the TLPFM, except in flexion. The muscle force and work of the multifidus were the greatest in the TLPFM. CONCLUSIONS: PLIF increased the ROM and maximum von Mises stress in adjacent cranial segments. The preservation of the proximal multifidus muscle contributes to the maintenance of the physiological mechanical behavior of adjacent segments, thus preventing the occurrence and development of ASD.

Biomechanical effects of Evans versus Hintermann osteotomy for treating adult acquired flatfoot deformity: a patient-specific finite element investigation.

BACKGROUND: Evans and Hintermann lateral column lengthening (LCL) procedures are both widely used to correct adult acquired flatfoot deformity (AAFD), and have both shown good clinical results. The aim of this study was to compare these two procedures in terms of corrective ability and biomechanics influence on the Chopart and subtalar joints through finite element (FE) analysis. METHODS: Twelve patient-specific FE models were established and validated. The Hintermann osteotomy was performed between the medial and posterior facets of the subtalar joint; while, the Evans osteotomy was performed on the anterior neck of the calcaneus around 10 mm from the calcaneocuboid joint surface. In each procedure, a triangular wedge of varying size was inserted at the lateral edge. The two procedures were then compared based on the measured strains of superomedial calcaneonavicular ligaments and planter facia, the talus-first metatarsal angle, and the contact characteristics of talonavicular, calcaneocuboid and subtalar joints. RESULTS: The Hintermann procedure achieved a greater correction of the talus-first metatarsal angle than Evans when using grafts of the same size, indicating that Hintermann had stronger corrective ability. However, its distributions of von-Mises stress in the subtalar, talonavicular and calcaneocuboid joints were less homogeneous than those of Evans. In addition, the strains of superomedial calcaneonavicular ligaments and planter facia of Hintermann were also greater than those of Evans, but both generally within the safe range (less than 6%). CONCLUSION: This FE analysis study indicates that both Evans and Hintermann procedures have good corrective ability for AAFD. Compared to Evans, Hintermann procedure can provide a stronger corrective effect while causing greater disturbance to the biomechanics of Chopart joints, which may be an important mechanism of arthritis. Nevertheless, it yields a better protection to the subtalar joint than Evans osteotomy. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both Evans and Hintermann LCL surgeries have a considerable impact on adjacent joints and ligament tissues. Such effects alongside the overcorrection problem should be cautiously considered when choosing the specific surgical method. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control study.

Biomechanical effects of iatrogenic muscle-ligaments complex damage on adjacent segments following posterior lumbar interbody fusion: A finite element analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the biomechanical effects of proximal iatrogenic muscle-ligaments complex (MLC) damage on adjacent segments following posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) by finite element (FE) analysis. METHODS: The multifidus muscle force was loaded in the validated intact lumbosacral finite element model. Based on whether undergoing PLIF or the proximal MLC damage, three models were established. Range of motion (ROM) and the maximum von Mises (VM) stress of adjacent segments were analyzed, as well as the average muscle force and work capacity in four loading directions. RESULTS: PLIF results in significant changes in ROM and stress. ROM changed significantly in the upper adjacent segment, the PLIF model changed the most in extension, and the largest change in the lower adjacent segment occurred after MLC damage. The VM stress of the upper adjacent segment occurred in extension of the PLIF model, and that of the lower adjacent segment occurred in rotation after MLC damage. In flexion, ROM, and stress of the damaged MLC fusion model were significantly increased compared with the normal and PLIF models, there was a stepwise amplification. The average muscle force comparison of three models was 5.8530, 12.3185, and 13.4670 N, respectively. The total work capacity comparison was close to that of muscle force. CONCLUSION: PLIF results in increased ROM and the VM stress of adjacent segments, the proximal MLC damage will aggravate this change. This may increase the risk of ASD and chronic low back pain. Preserving the proximal MLC reduces the biomechanical effects on adjacent segments.