Finite element model predicts the biomechanical performance of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with various porous additive manufactured cages

In lumbar interbody fusion, a porous additive manufactured (AM) cage can provide more desirable stiffness, and may be beneficial to bone ingrowth. The biomechanical influence of porous cages on stability, subsidence, and facet contact force has not been fully described. The aim of this study was to verify biomechanical effects of porous cages. A surgical finite element (FE) model of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) was constructed. Partially porous (PP) cages and fully porous (FP) cages were applied. Mechanical tests were performed to obtain the mechanical parameters of porous materials. The porous cages were compared to solid titanium (TI) cage and solid PEEK cage. Four motion modes were simulated. Range of motion (ROM), cage stress, endplate stress, and facet joint force (FJF) were compared. After interbody fusion, ROM decreased by more than 90% in flexion, bending and rotation. Compared with TI and PP cages, PEEK and FP cages substantially reduced the maximum stresses in cage and endplate in all motion modes. Compared with PEEK cages, the stresses in cage and endplate for FP cages decreased, whereas the ROM increased. Compared among three FP cages, the stresses in cage and endplate decreased with increasing porosity, whereas ROM increased with increasing porosity. FJF for various cages was substantially reduced compared to the intact model in all motion modes except for flexion. In summary, fully porous cages with a porosity of between 65% and 80% may offer an alternative to solid PEEK cages in TLIF.

[1]  Avinash G Patwardhan,et al.  Effect of Supplemental Translaminar Facet Screw Fixation on the Stability of Stand-Alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages Under Physiologic Compressive Preloads , 2004, Spine.

[2]  Alexander W. L. Turner,et al.  Biomechanics of lateral lumbar interbody fusion constructs with lateral and posterior plate fixation: laboratory investigation. , 2014, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[3]  V. Goel,et al.  Biomechanics of two-level Charité artificial disc placement in comparison to fusion plus single-level disc placement combination. , 2006, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[4]  T. Kluba,et al.  [Posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) for the treatment of localised segment degeneration of lumbar spine]. , 2011, Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie und Unfallchirurgie.

[5]  Thomas R Oxland,et al.  Load Transfer Characteristics Between Posterior Spinal Implants and the Lumbar Spine Under Anterior Shear Loading: An In Vitro Investigation , 2012, Spine.

[6]  B. Kunze,et al.  Posteriore und transforaminale lumbale interkorporelle Fusion (PLIF/TLIF) zur Therapie des lokalisierten Segmentaufbrauchs der LWS , 2011 .

[7]  Kent N Bachus,et al.  Less invasive posterior fixation method following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical analysis. , 2006, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[8]  Christian M. Puttlitz,et al.  Parametric convergence sensitivity and validation of a finite element model of the human lumbar spine , 2011, Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering.

[9]  Dietmar W Hutmacher,et al.  Assessment of bone ingrowth into porous biomaterials using MICRO-CT. , 2007, Biomaterials.

[10]  Chih-Hsien Chen,et al.  Computational comparison of three posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques by using porous titanium interbody cages with 50% porosity , 2016, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[11]  T. Lund,et al.  Biomechanics of stand-alone cages and cages in combination with posterior fixation: a literature review , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[12]  Dong-Hee Kim,et al.  Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using a Unilateral Single Cage and a Local Morselized Bone Graft in the Degenerative Lumbar Spine , 2009, Clinics in orthopedic surgery.

[13]  Zheng-Cheng Zhong,et al.  Finite element analysis of the lumbar spine with a new cage using a topology optimization method. , 2006, Medical engineering & physics.

[14]  Hou Tie.  Porosity of Biomaterials and Bone Ingrowth , 2008 .

[15]  R. Lehman,et al.  Bilateral pedicle screw fixation provides superior biomechanical stability in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element study. , 2015, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[16]  Jun Ma,et al.  Biomechanical comparison of multilevel lateral interbody fusion with and without supplementary instrumentation: a three-dimensional finite element study , 2017, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

[17]  Antonius Rohlmann,et al.  Effect of multilevel lumbar disc arthroplasty on spine kinematics and facet joint loads in flexion and extension: a finite element analysis , 2012, European Spine Journal.

[18]  A Shirazi-Adl,et al.  Mechanical Response of a Lumbar Motion Segment in Axial Torque Alone and Combined with Compression , 1986, Spine.

[19]  Cesare Faldini,et al.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion , 2017, European Spine Journal.

[20]  Zhenhua Liao,et al.  Biomechanical Analysis of Porous Additive Manufactured Cages for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Analysis. , 2017, World neurosurgery.

[21]  Etsuo Chosa,et al.  Analysis of the Effect of Lumbar Spine Fusion on the Superior Adjacent Intervertebral Disk in the Presence of Disk Degeneration, Using the Three-Dimensional Finite Element Method , 2004, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[22]  William D. Lew,et al.  In Vitro, Biomechanical Comparison of an Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with an Anteriorly Placed, Low-Profile Lumbar Plate and Posteriorly Placed Pedicle Screws or Translaminar Screws , 2005, Spine.

[23]  A Rohlmann,et al.  Comparison of eight published static finite element models of the intact lumbar spine: predictive power of models improves when combined together. , 2014, Journal of biomechanics.

[24]  Min Zhou,et al.  A comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review and meta-analysis , 2014, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

[25]  M. Aebi,et al.  Biomechanical stability of five stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion constructs , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[26]  Frank M. Phillips,et al.  Biomechanical evaluation of stand-alone lumbar polyether-ether-ketone interbody cage with integrated screws. , 2013, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[27]  Frank Pfeiffer,et al.  Lumbar Total Disc Arthroplasty Utilizing the ProDisc Prosthesis in Smokers Versus Nonsmokers: A Prospective Study With 2-Year Minimum Follow-up , 2006, Spine.

[28]  Dong Zhu,et al.  Biomechanical evaluation of three surgical scenarios of posterior lumbar interbody fusion by finite element analysis , 2012, BioMedical Engineering OnLine.

[29]  Yong Shen,et al.  Unilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation with Bone Graft vs. Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation with Bone Graft or Cage: A Comparative Study , 2016, Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research.

[30]  L Claes,et al.  Influence of a Follower Load on Intradiscal Pressure and Intersegmental Rotation of the Lumbar Spine , 2001, Spine.

[31]  Jean-Pierre Kruth,et al.  Additively manufactured porous tantalum implants. , 2015, Acta biomaterialia.

[32]  A. A. Zadpoor,et al.  Mechanical properties of open-cell metallic biomaterials manufactured using additive manufacturing , 2013 .

[33]  Vijay K. Goel,et al.  Biomechanical Rationale for Using Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Spacers for Lumbar Interbody Fusion–A Finite Element Study , 2006, Spine.

[34]  Ching-Chi Hsu,et al.  Biomechanical investigation into the structural design of porous additive manufactured cages using numerical and experimental approaches , 2016, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[35]  D. Shin,et al.  Biomechanical Effects of the Geometry of Ball-and-Socket Artificial Disc on Lumbar Spine: A Finite Element Study , 2017, Spine.

[36]  Chia-Ying Lin,et al.  Porous biodegradable lumbar interbody fusion cage design and fabrication using integrated global-local topology optimization with laser sintering. , 2013, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[37]  Gladius Lewis,et al.  Properties of open-cell porous metals and alloys for orthopaedic applications , 2013, Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine.

[38]  A Shirazi-Adl,et al.  Biomechanics of the Lumbar Spine in Sagittal/Lateral Moments , 1994, Spine.

[39]  Jung-Hee Lee,et al.  Biomechanical changes of the lumbar segment after total disc replacement : charite(r), prodisc(r) and maverick(r) using finite element model study. , 2010, Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.

[40]  Xiaofei Guan,et al.  Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease , 2014, International Orthopaedics.

[41]  Vikas V Patel,et al.  Interbody Spacer Material Properties and Design Conformity for Reducing Subsidence During Lumbar Interbody Fusion. , 2017, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[42]  Jianfeng Kang,et al.  Mapping porous microstructures to yield desired mechanical properties for application in 3D printed bone scaffolds and orthopaedic implants , 2017 .

[43]  Meic H. Schmidt,et al.  Comparison of low back fusion techniques: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approaches , 2009, Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine.

[44]  Ali Kiapour,et al.  Biomechanical Analysis of Various Footprints of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Devices , 2014, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[45]  Lutz Claes,et al.  Application of a calibration method provides more realistic results for a finite element model of a lumbar spinal segment. , 2007, Clinical biomechanics.