» Articles » PMID: 21160401

Biomechanical Analysis and Review of Lateral Lumbar Fusion Constructs

Overview
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2010 Dec 17
PMID 21160401
Citations 67
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Study Design: Biomechanical study and the review of literature on lumbar interbody fusion constructs.

Objective: To demonstrate the comparative stabilizing effects of lateral interbody fusion with various supplemental internal fixation options.

Summary Of Background Data: Lumbar interbody fusion procedures are regularly performed using anterior, posterior, and more recently, lateral approaches. The biomechanical profile of each is determined by the extent of resection of local supportive structures, implant size and orientation, and the type of supplemental internal fixation used.

Methods: Pure moment flexibility testing was performed using a custom-built 6 degree-of-freedom system to apply a moment of ±7.5 Nm in each motion plane, while motion segment kinematics were evaluated using an optoelectronic motion system. Constructs tested included the intact spine, stand-alone extreme lateral interbody implant, interbody implant with lateral plate, unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation. These results were evaluated against those from literature-reported biomechanical studies of other lumbar interbody constructs.

Results: All conditions demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in range of motion (ROM) as a percentage of intact. In flexion-extension, ROM was 31.6% stand-alone, 32.5% lateral fixation, and 20.4% and 13.0% unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation, respectively. In lateral bending, the trend was similar with greater reduction with lateral fixation than in flexion-extension; ROM was 32.5% stand-alone, 15.9% lateral fixation, and 21.6% and 14.4% unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation. ROM was greatest in axial rotation; 69.4% stand-alone, 53.4% lateral fixation, and 51.3% and 41.7% unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation, respectively.

Conclusion: The extreme lateral interbody construct provided the largest stand-alone reduction in ROM compared with literature-reported ALIF and TLIF constructs. Supplemental bilateral pedicle screw-based fixation provided the overall greatest reduction in ROM, similar among all interbody approach techniques. Lateral fixation and unilateral pedicle screw fixation provided intermediate reductions in ROM. Clinically, surgeons may evaluate these comparative results to choose fixation options commensurate with the stability requirements of individual patients.

Citing Articles

What Is the Suitable Wide Cage Size for Stand-alone LLIF in Asian Population: A Computed Tomography Scan-Based Study of a Dimension of Lumbar Endplate.

Pluemvitayaporn T, Tadee S, Kunakornsawat S, Surapuchong S, Ratanakoosakul W, Tiracharnvut K Asian J Neurosurg. 2025; 20(1):119-125.

PMID: 40041582 PMC: 11875720. DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1796668.


An in vitro biomechanical evaluation of integrated lateral plate combined with oblique lateral interbody fusion in different bone conditions.

Wang Z, Yang W, Liu X, Liang S, Cai Z, Guo W Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):29432.

PMID: 39604491 PMC: 11603067. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-80631-8.


Radiological evaluation of fusion patterns after Lateral Lumbar Interbody fusion with 3D-printed porous titanium cages vs. conventional titanium cages.

Velluto C, Mundis Jr G, Scaramuzzo L, Perna A, Capece G, Cruciani A Front Surg. 2024; 11:1446792.

PMID: 39474232 PMC: 11518840. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1446792.


Factors that influence the results of indirect decompression employing oblique lumbar interbody fusion.

Bokov A, Kalinina S, Khaltyrov M, Saifullin A, Bulkin A World J Orthop. 2024; 15(8):734-743.

PMID: 39165880 PMC: 11331328. DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v15.i8.734.


Lateral interbody fusion without intraoperative neuromonitoring in addition to posterior instrumented fusion in geriatric patients: A single center consecutive series of 108 surgeries.

Bobinski L, Liv P, Meyer B, Krieg S Brain Spine. 2023; 3:101782.

PMID: 38021016 PMC: 10668059. DOI: 10.1016/j.bas.2023.101782.