» Articles » PMID: 32059656

Biomechanical Analysis of Single-level Interbody Fusion with Different Internal Fixation Rod Materials: a Finite Element Analysis

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialties Orthopedics
Physiology
Date 2020 Feb 16
PMID 32059656
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Lumbar spinal fusion with rigid spinal fixators as one of the high risk factors related to adjacent-segment failure. The purpose of this study is to investigate how the material properties of spinal fixation rods influence the biomechanical behavior at the instrumented and adjacent levels through the use of the finite element method.

Methods: Five finite element models were constructed in our study to simulate the human spine pre- and post-surgery. For the four post-surgical models, the spines were implanted with rods made of three different materials: (i) titanium rod, (ii) PEEK rod with interbody PEEK cage, (iii) Biodegradable rod with interbody PEEK cage, and (iv) PEEK cage without pedicle screw fixation (no rods).

Results: Fusion of the lumbar spine using PEEK or biodegradable rods allowed a similar ROM at both the fusion and adjacent levels under all conditions. The models with PEEK and biodegradable rods also showed a similar increase in contact forces at adjacent facet joints, but both were less than the model with a titanium rod.

Conclusions: Flexible rods or cages with non-instrumented fusion can mitigate the increased contact forces on adjacent facet joints typically found following spinal fixation, and could also reduce the level of stress shielding at the bone graft.

Citing Articles

Quantitative relationships between elastic modulus of rod and biomechanical properties of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis.

Li J, Du Z, Cao S, Lu T, Sun Z, Wei H Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2025; 12():1510597.

PMID: 39845378 PMC: 11752904. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1510597.


An OLIF Cage Integrated with a Low-Profile Plate and Cross Screws Could Reduce the Risk of Postoperative Complications Biomechanically.

Cai P, Xu C, Zhang Z, Fang Z, Deng C, Chen G Ann Biomed Eng. 2024; 53(3):683-698.

PMID: 39636380 DOI: 10.1007/s10439-024-03643-5.


Biomechanical comparison of polyetheretherketone rods and titanium alloy rods in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis.

Li J, Cao S, Zhao B BMC Surg. 2024; 24(1):169.

PMID: 38811965 PMC: 11134660. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-024-02462-8.


Fusion rate and complications of oblique lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis.

Xiao X, Duan H, Pan X, Zhao H Front Surg. 2024; 11:1374134.

PMID: 38746621 PMC: 11091322. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1374134.


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.


References
1.
Park P, Garton H, Gala V, Hoff J, McGillicuddy J . Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29(17):1938-44. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000137069.88904.03. View

2.
Chou W, Chien A, Wang J . Biomechanical analysis between PEEK and titanium screw-rods spinal construct subjected to fatigue loading. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014; 28(3):E121-5. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000176. View

3.
Schlegel J, Smith J, Schleusener R . Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbosacral fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996; 21(8):970-81. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199604150-00013. View

4.
Chen C, Cheng C, Liu C, Lo W . Stress analysis of the disc adjacent to interbody fusion in lumbar spine. Med Eng Phys. 2001; 23(7):483-91. DOI: 10.1016/s1350-4533(01)00076-5. View

5.
Zhong Z, Chen S, Hung C . Load- and displacement-controlled finite element analyses on fusion and non-fusion spinal implants. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2009; 223(2):143-57. DOI: 10.1243/09544119JEIM476. View