title: In vitro fixator rod loading after transforaminal compared to anterior lumbar interbody fusion.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Cages are commonly used to assist lumbar interbody fusion. They are implanted from various approaches. In many cases internal fixators are added to provide sufficient stability. However, how the rods of these fixators are loaded and whether the kind of approach affects these loads is still unknown. The aim of this in vitro study therefore was to determine the loads acting on fixator rods and cages after anterior compared to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
  
  
  METHODS
  Six intact human lumbar spine specimens (L1-5) were loaded in a spine tester with pure moments (+/-7.5 N m) in the frontal, sagittal and transverse plane. Loading was repeated, first, after the segments L2-3 and L4-5 were instrumented either with an anterior or a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage "stand alone" and, second, after additional stabilisation with an internal fixator. The rods of the fixator and the four "corners" of the cages were instrumented with strain gauges.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The loads transmitted through the rods were highest in lateral bending. In this loading direction an axial distraction force of in median up to 140 N, an axial compression force of up to 100 N, and a resultant bending moment of up to 1.1 N m were measured in each rod. These loads tended to be lower for the anterior compared to the transforaminal approach. For comparison, the load applied was +/-7.5 N m. The axial strains recorded in the four "corners" of the cages considerably varied from one specimen to the other. Differences in cage strain between the two approaches could not be detected.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The loads acting on the rods of the fixator were small compared to the load that was applied. Thus, other structures such as the cages or the facet joints still play an important role in load transfer. The type of approach (anterior or transforaminal) had only little effect on the loading of the rods. This also applies to the local loading of the cages, which probably more depends on the fit between cage and endplates and on the local stiffness properties of the adjacent vertebral bodies.
authors.affiliation: Institute for Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics, University of Ulm, Helmholtzstrabe 14, D-89081 Ulm, Germany.
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Kettler
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Niemeyer
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Issler
authors.forename: U
authors.initials: U
authors.lastname: Merk
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Mahalingam
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Werner
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Claes
authors.forename: H-J
authors.initials: HJ
authors.lastname: Wilke
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D002102:Cadaver; D019245:Compressive Strength; D004867:Equipment Design; D019544:Equipment Failure Analysis; D006801:Humans; D066298:In Vitro Techniques; D016268:Internal Fixators; D008159:Lumbar Vertebrae / Q000503:physiopathology* / Q000601:surgery*; D008875:Middle Aged; D013123:Spinal Fusion / Q000295:instrumentation*; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013718:Tensile Strength; D016474:Weight-Bearing