» Articles » PMID: 29145437

Assessment of the Suitability of Biodegradable Rods for Use in Posterior Lumbar Fusion: An In-vitro Biomechanical Evaluation and Finite Element Analysis

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2017 Nov 18
PMID 29145437
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Interbody fusion with posterior instrumentation is a common method for treating lumbar degenerative disc diseases. However, the high rigidity of the fusion construct may produce abnormal stresses at the adjacent segment and lead to adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). As such, biodegradable implants are becoming more popular for use in orthopaedic surgery. These implants offer sufficient stability for fusion but at a reduced stiffness. Tailored to degrade over a specific timeframe, biodegradable implants could potentially mitigate the drawbacks of conventional stiff constructs and reduce the loading on adjacent segments. Six finite element models were developed in this study to simulate a spine with and without fixators. The spinal fixators used both titanium rods and biodegradable rods. The models were subjected to axial loading and pure moments. The range of motion (ROM), disc stresses, and contact forces of facet joints at adjacent segments were recorded. A 3-point bending test was performed on the biodegradable rods and a dynamic bending test was performed on the spinal fixators according to ASTM F1717-11a. The finite element simulation showed that lumbar spinal fusion using biodegradable implants had a similar ROM at the fusion level as at adjacent levels. As the rods degraded over time, this produced a decrease in the contact force at adjacent facet joints, less stress in the adjacent disc and greater loading on the anterior bone graft region. The mechanical tests showed the initial average fatigue strength of the biodegradable rods was 145 N, but this decreased to 115N and 55N after 6 months and 12 months of soaking in solution. Also, both the spinal fixator with biodegradable rods and with titanium rods was strong enough to withstand 5,000,000 dynamic compression cycles under a 145 N axial load. The results of this study demonstrated that biodegradable rods may present more favourable clinical outcomes for lumbar fusion. These polymer rods could not only provide sufficient initial stability, but the loss in rigidity of the fixation construct over time gradually transfers loading to adjacent segments.

Citing Articles

Recent advancement in finite element analysis of spinal interbody cages: A review.

Wang R, Wu Z Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023; 11:1041973.

PMID: 37034256 PMC: 10076720. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1041973.


A comparative Study of Novel Extramedullary Fixation and Dynamic Hip Screw in the Fixation of Intertrochanteric Fracture: A Finite-Element Analysis.

Ding K, Zhu Y, Wang H, Li Y, Yang W, Cheng X Front Surg. 2022; 9:911141.

PMID: 35693317 PMC: 9174929. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.911141.


Titanium alloy cannulated screws and biodegradable magnesium alloy bionic cannulated screws for treatment of femoral neck fractures: a finite element analysis.

Ding K, Yang W, Zhu J, Cheng X, Wang H, Hao D J Orthop Surg Res. 2021; 16(1):511.

PMID: 34407833 PMC: 8371795. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02665-2.


Titanium Alloy Gamma Nail versus Biodegradable Magnesium Alloy Bionic Gamma Nail for Treating Intertrochanteric Fractures: A Finite Element Analysis.

Li M, Zhao K, Ding K, Cui Y, Cheng X, Yang W Orthop Surg. 2021; 13(5):1513-1520.

PMID: 34075690 PMC: 8313150. DOI: 10.1111/os.12973.


Biomechanical analysis of single-level interbody fusion with different internal fixation rod materials: a finite element analysis.

Hsieh Y, Tsuang F, Kuo Y, Chen C, Chiang C, Lin C BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020; 21(1):100.

PMID: 32059656 PMC: 7023693. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-3111-1.


References
1.
Bezer M, Yildirim Y, Erol B, Guven O . Absorbable self-reinforced polylactide (SR-PLLA) rods vs rigid rods (K-wire) in spinal fusion: an experimental study in rabbits. Eur Spine J. 2004; 14(3):227-33. PMC: 3476748. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-004-0781-6. View

2.
Etebar S, Cahill D . Risk factors for adjacent-segment failure following lumbar fixation with rigid instrumentation for degenerative instability. J Neurosurg. 1999; 90(2 Suppl):163-9. DOI: 10.3171/spi.1999.90.2.0163. View

3.
Kumar M, Baklanov A, Chopin D . Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J. 2001; 10(4):314-9. PMC: 3611507. DOI: 10.1007/s005860000239. View

4.
Kok D, Firkins P, Wapstra F, Veldhuizen A . A new lumbar posterior fixation system, the memory metal spinal system: an in-vitro mechanical evaluation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013; 14:269. PMC: 3871762. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-269. View

5.
Gercek E, Arlet V, Delisle J, Marchesi D . Subsidence of stand-alone cervical cages in anterior interbody fusion: warning. Eur Spine J. 2003; 12(5):513-6. PMC: 3468003. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-003-0539-6. View