RESUMO
PURPOSE: To analyze the effect of endplate weakness prior to PLIF or TLIF cage implantation and compare it to the opposite intact endplate of the same vertebral body. In addition, the influence of bone quality on endplate resistance was investigated. METHODS: Twenty-two human lumbar vertebrae were tested in a ramp-to-failure test. One endplate of each vertebral body was tested intact and the other after weakening with a rasp (over an area of 200 mm2). Either a TLIF or PLIF cage was then placed and the compression load was applied across the cage until failure of the endplate. Failure was defined as the first local maximum of the force measurement. Bone quality was assessed by determining the Hounsfield units (HU) on CT images. RESULTS: With an intact endplate and a TLIF cage, the median force to failure was 1276.3N (693.1-1980.6N). Endplate weakening reduced axial endplate resistance to failure by 15% (0-23%). With an intact endplate and a PLIF cage, the median force to failure was 1057.2N (701.2-1735.5N). Endplate weakening reduced axial endplate resistance to failure by 36.6% (7-47.9%). Bone quality correlated linearly with the force at which endplate failure occurred. Intact and weakened endplates showed a strong positive correlation: intact-TLIF: r = 0.964, slope of the regression line (slope) = 11.8, p < 0.001; intact-PLIF: r = 0.909, slope = 11.2, p = 5.5E-05; weakened-TLIF: r = 0.973, slope = 12.5, p < 0.001; weakened-PLIF: r = 0.836, slope = 6, p = 0.003. CONCLUSION: Weakening of the endplate during cage bed preparation significantly reduces the resistance of the endplate to subsidence to failure: endplate load capacity is reduced by 15% with TLIF and 37% with PLIF. Bone quality correlates with the force at which endplate failure occurs.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF, TLIF) are well-established procedures for spinal fusion. However, little is known about load sharing between cage, dorsal construct, and biological tissue within the instrumented lumbar spine. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to quantify the forces acting on cages under axial compression force with and without posterior instrumentation. STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical cadaveric study. METHODS: Ten lumbar spinal segments were tested under uniaxial compression using load cell instrumented intervertebral cages. The force was increased in 100N increments to 1000N or a force greater than 500N on one load cell. Each specimen was tested after unilateral PLIF (uPLIF), bilateral PLIF (bPLIF) and TLIF each with/without posterior instrumentation. Dorsal instrumentation was performed with 55N of compression per side. RESULTS: Cage insertion resulted in median cage preloads of 16N, 29N and 35N for uPLIF, bPLIF, and TLIF. The addition of compressed dorsal instrumentation increased the median preload to 224N, 328N, and 317N, respectively. With posterior instrumentation, the percentage of the external load acting on the intervertebral cage was less than 25% at 100N (uPLIF: 14.2%; bPLIF: 16%; TLIF: 11%), less than 45% at 500N (uPLIF: 31.8%; bPLIF: 41.1%; TLIF: 37.9%) and less than 50% at 1000N (uPLIF: 40.3%; bPLIF: 49.7%; TLIF: 43.4%). Without posterior instrumentation, the percentage of external load on the cages was significantly higher with values above 50% at 100N (uPLIF: 55.6%; bPLIF: 75.5%; TLIF: 66.8%), 500N (uPLIF: 71.7%; bPLIF: 79.2%; TLIF: 65.4%), and 1000N external load (uPLIF: 73%; bPLIF: 80.5%; TLIF: 66.1%). For absolute loads, preloads and external loads must be added together. CONCLUSIONS: Without posterior instrumentation, the intervertebral cages absorb more than 50% of the axial load and the load distribution is largely independent of the loading amplitude. With posterior instrumentation, the external load acting on the cages is significantly lower and the load distribution becomes load amplitude dependent, with a higher proportion of the load transferred by the cages at high loads. The bPLIF cages tend to absorb more force than the other two cage configurations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Cage instrumentation allows some of the compression force to be transmitted through the cage to the screws below, better distributing and reducing the overall force on the pedicle screws at the end of the construct and on the rods.