Biomechanical study on the effect of five different lumbar reconstruction techniques on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and lamina strain

被引:72
作者
Sudo, Hideki [1 ]
Oda, Itaru [1 ]
Abumi, Kuniyoshi [1 ]
Ito, Manabu [1 ]
Kotani, Yoshihisa [1 ]
Minami, Akio [1 ]
机构
[1] Hokkaido Univ, Grad Sch Med, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Kita Ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 0608638, Japan
关键词
biomechanical testing; lumbar spine; posterior lumbar interbody fusion; intradiscal pressure; lamina strain; kyphosis;
D O I
10.3171/spi.2006.5.2.150
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Object. The objectives of this study were to compare the biomechanical effects of five lumbar reconstruction models on the adjacent segment and to analyze the effects of three factors: construct stiffness, sagittal alignment, and the number of fused segments. Methods. Nondestructive flexion-extension tests were performed by applying pure moments to 10 calf spinal (L3-S1) specimens. One-segment (L5-6) or two-segment (L5-S1) posterior fusion methods were simulated: 1) one-segment posterolateral fusion (PLF); 2) one-segment PLF with interbody fusion cages (one-segment PLIF/PLF); 3) two-segment PLF; 4) two-segment PLIF/PLF; and 5) two-segment PLF in kyphosis (two-segment kyphotic PLF). The range of motion (ROM) of the reconstructed segments, intradiscal pressure (IDP), and lamina strain in the upper (L4-5) adjacent segment were analyzed. The ROM was significantly decreased in the PLIF/PLF models compared with that in the PLF alone models after both the one- and two-segment fusions. If the number of fused segments was increased, the pressure and strains were also increased in specimens subjected to the PLIF/PLF procedure, more so than the PLF-alone procedure. In the one-segment PLIF/PLF model the authors observed a reduced IDP and lamina strain compared with those in the kyphotic two-segment PLF model despite the latter's higher levels of initial stiffness. Conclusions. If the number of fused levels can be reduced by using PLIF to correct local kyphosis, then this procedure may be valuable for reducing adjacent-segment degenerative changes.
引用
收藏
页码:150 / 155
页数:6
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]   BIOMECHANICAL EVALUATION OF LUMBAR SPINAL STABILITY AFTER GRADED FACETECTOMIES [J].
ABUMI, K ;
PANJABI, MM ;
KRAMER, KM ;
DURANCEAU, J ;
OXLAND, T ;
CRISCO, JJ .
SPINE, 1990, 15 (11) :1142-1147
[2]   Adjacent segment motion after a simulated lumbar fusion in different sagittal alignments - A biomechanical analysis [J].
Akamaru, T ;
Kawahara, N ;
Yoon, ST ;
Minamide, A ;
Kim, KS ;
Tomita, K ;
Hutton, WC .
SPINE, 2003, 28 (14) :1560-1566
[3]   Posterior lumbar interbody fusion - A biomechanical comparison, including a new threaded cage [J].
Brodke, DS ;
Dick, JC ;
Kunz, DN ;
McCabe, R ;
Zdeblick, TA .
SPINE, 1997, 22 (01) :26-31
[4]   AN EXPERIMENTAL-METHOD FOR MEASURING FORCE ON THE SPINAL FACET JOINT - DESCRIPTION AND APPLICATION OF THE METHOD [J].
BUTTERMANN, GR ;
KAHMANN, RD ;
LEWIS, JL ;
BRADFORD, DS .
JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING-TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASME, 1991, 113 (04) :375-386
[5]  
CHOW D, 1996, SPINE, V5, P549
[6]   The effect of spinal destabilization and instrumentation on lumbar intradiscal pressure an in vitro biomechanical analysis [J].
Cunningham, BW ;
Kotani, Y ;
McNulty, PS ;
Cappuccino, A ;
McAfee, PC .
SPINE, 1997, 22 (22) :2655-2663
[7]   Osteogenic protein versus autologous interbody arthrodesis in the sheep thoracic spine -: A comparative endoscopic study using the Bagby and Kuslich interbody fusion device [J].
Cunningham, BW ;
Kanayama, M ;
Parker, LM ;
Weis, JC ;
Sefter, JC ;
Fedder, IL ;
McAfee, PC .
SPINE, 1999, 24 (06) :509-518
[8]   Thoracolumbar deformity arthrodesis to L5 in adults: The fate of the L5-S1 disc [J].
Edwards, CC ;
Bridwell, KH ;
Patel, A ;
Rinella, AS ;
Kim, YJ ;
Berra, A ;
Della Rocca, GJ ;
Lenke, LG .
SPINE, 2003, 28 (18) :2122-2131
[9]  
HETH JA, 2003, SPINE, V26, pE261
[10]   In vitro biomechanical analysis of three anterior thoracolumbar implants [J].
Hitchon, PW ;
Goel, VK ;
Rogge, TN ;
Torner, JC ;
Dooris, AP ;
Drake, JS ;
Yang, SJ ;
Totoribe, K .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2000, 93 (02) :252-258