title: Biomechanical comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion: stand-alone interbody cage versus interbody cage with pedicle screw fixation -- a finite element analysis.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) followed by pedicle screw fixation (PSF) is used to restore the height of the intervertebral disc and provide stability. Recently, stand-alone interbody cage with anterior fixation has been introduced, which eliminates the need for posterior surgery. We compared the biomechanics of the stand-alone interbody cage to that of the interbody cage with additional PSF in ALIF.
  
  
  METHODS
  A three-dimensional, non-linear finite element model (FEM) of the L2-5 segment was modified to simulate ALIF in L3-4. The models were tested under the following conditions: (1) intact spine, (2) destabilized spine, (3) with the interbody cage alone (type 1), (4) with the stand-alone cage with anterior fixation (SynFix-LR®; type 2), and (5) with type 1 in addition to PSF (type 3). Range of motion (ROM) and the stiffness of the operated level, ROM of the adjacent segments, load sharing distribution, facet load, and vertebral body stress were quantified with external loading.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The implanted models had decreased ROM and increased stiffness compared to those of the destabilized spine. The type 2 had differences in ROM limitation of 8%, 10%, 4%, and 6% in flexion, extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending, respectively, compared to those of type 3. Type 2 had decreased ROM of the upper and lower adjacent segments by 3-11% and 3-6%, respectively, compared to those of type 3. The greatest reduction in facet load at the operated level was observed in type 3 (71%), followed by type 2 (31%) and type 1 (23%). An increase in facet load at the adjacent level was highest in type 3, followed by type 2 and type 1. The distribution of load sharing in type 2 (anterior:posterior, 95:5) was similar to that of the intact spine (89:11), while type 3 migrated posterior (75:25) to the normal. Type 2 reduced about 15% of the stress on the lower vertebral endplate compared to that in type 1. The stress of type 2 increased two-fold compared to the stress of type 3, especially in extension.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The stand-alone interbody cage can provide sufficient stability, reduce stress in adjacent levels, and share the loading distribution in a manner similar to an intact spine.
authors.affiliation: Department of Neurosurgery, Wooridul Spine Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
authors.forename: Kyung-Chul
authors.initials: KC
authors.lastname: Choi
authors.forename: Kyeong-Sik
authors.initials: KS
authors.lastname: Ryu
authors.forename: Sang-Ho
authors.initials: SH
authors.lastname: Lee
authors.forename: Yeong Hyeon
authors.initials: YH
authors.lastname: Kim
authors.forename: Sung Jae
authors.initials: SJ
authors.lastname: Lee
authors.forename: Chun-Kun
authors.initials: CK
authors.lastname: Park
mesh_terms: D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D001860:Bone Plates; D001863:Bone Screws; D002102:Cadaver; D004548:Elasticity; D020342:Finite Element Analysis; D006801:Humans; D008159:Lumbar Vertebrae / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*; D008954:Models, Biological; D011859:Radiography; D016059:Range of Motion, Articular; D013123:Spinal Fusion / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D016474:Weight-Bearing
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Sep 1;29(17):1938-44
references.pmid: 15534420
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984 Mar;9(2):120-34
references.pmid: 6233710
references.citation: Med Biol Eng Comput. 2010 Jul;48(7):703-9
references.pmid: 20440570
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Jan 15;25(2):170-9
references.pmid: 10685480
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1957 Oct;39-A(5):1135-64
references.pmid: 13475413
references.citation: Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1960;43:1-104
references.pmid: 14425680
references.citation: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2007 Mar;22(3):257-65
references.pmid: 17196720
references.citation: Biomed Mater. 2008 Dec;3(4):044101
references.pmid: 19029615
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2003 Aug;12(4):413-20
references.pmid: 12955610
references.citation: J Neurosurg Spine. 2005 Jun;2(6):737-40
references.pmid: 16028745
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 1992 Jun;1(1):2-6
references.pmid: 20054939
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Jun 1;27(11):1131-41
references.pmid: 12045508
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 May 1;27(9):923-8
references.pmid: 11979162
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2008 Dec;17(12):1757-65
references.pmid: 18841399
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Apr 15;20(8):887-900
references.pmid: 7644953
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Dec 15;26(24):E557-61
references.pmid: 11740371
references.citation: J Biomech Eng. 1982 Aug;104(3):193-201
references.pmid: 7120943
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2000 Feb;9 Suppl 1:S95-101
references.pmid: 10766064
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989 Nov;14(11):1256-60
references.pmid: 2603060
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Dec 1;30(23):2631-6
references.pmid: 16319749
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Dec 15;22(24):2823-33
references.pmid: 9431618
references.citation: J Neurosurg Spine. 2011 Sep;15(3):295-310
references.pmid: 21619404
references.citation: Zentralbl Neurochir. 2002;63(1):12-7
references.pmid: 12098078
references.citation: Acta Orthop Scand. 1966;:Suppl 90:1-144
references.pmid: 5928121
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Apr 1;31(7):762-8
references.pmid: 16582849
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Mar 15;29(6):635-41
references.pmid: 15014273
references.citation: J Biomech. 1979;12(10):807-12
references.pmid: 489631
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 May 15;24(10):1003-9
references.pmid: 10332793
references.citation: J Neurosurg Spine. 2011 Apr;14(4):488-96
references.pmid: 21314280
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Mar 15;20(6):689-98
references.pmid: 7604345