Biomechanical comparison of a new stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion cage with established fixation techniques – a three-dimensional finite element analysis

BackgroundInitial promise of a stand-alone interbody fusion cage to treat chronic back pain and restore disc height has not been realized. In some instances, a posterior spinal fixation has been used to enhance stability and increase fusion rate. In this manuscript, a new stand-alone cage is compared with conventional fixation methods based on the finite element analysis, with a focus on investigating cage-bone interface mechanics and stress distribution on the adjacent tissues.MethodsThree trapezoid 8° interbody fusion cage models (dual paralleled cages, a single large cage, or a two-part cage consisting of a trapezoid box and threaded cylinder) were created with or without pedicle screws fixation to investigate the relative importance of the screws on the spinal segmental response. The contact stress on the facet joint, slip displacement of the cage on the endplate, and rotational angle of the upper vertebra were measured under different loading conditions.ResultsSimulation results demonstrated less facet stress and slip displacement with the maximal contact on the cage-bone interface. A stand-alone two-part cage had good slip behavior under compression, flexion, extension, lateral bending and torsion, as compared with the other two interbody cages, even with the additional posterior fixation. However, the two-part cage had the lowest rotational angles under flexion and torsion, but had no differences under extension and lateral bending.ConclusionThe biomechanical benefit of a stand-alone two-part fusion cage can be justified. This device provided the stability required for interbody fusion, which supports clinical trials of the cage as an alternative to circumferential fixations.

[1]  Antonius Rohlmann,et al.  Comparison of the biomechanical effects of posterior and anterior spine-stabilizing implants , 2005, European Spine Journal.

[2]  A. M. Ahmed,et al.  Stress analysis of the lumbar disc-body unit in compression. A three-dimensional nonlinear finite element study. , 1984, Spine.

[3]  D. R. Sumner,et al.  Biologic Factors Affecting Spinal Fusion and Bone Regeneration , 1995, Spine.

[4]  M. Aebi,et al.  Effect of implant design and endplate preparation on the compressive strength of interbody fusion constructs. , 2000, Spine.

[5]  M M Panjabi,et al.  Three-Dimensional Movements of the Whole Lumbar Spine and Lumbosacral Joint , 1989, Spine.

[6]  W C Hayes,et al.  Load Sharing Between the Shell and Centrum in the Lumbar Vertebral Body , 1997, Spine.

[7]  Thomas R. Oxland,et al.  Mapping the Structural Properties of the Lumbosacral Vertebral Endplates , 2001, Spine.

[8]  E Schneider,et al.  Structure and Function of Vertebral Trabecular Bone , 1997, Spine.

[9]  Stephen J. Ferguson,et al.  Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis , 2003, European Spine Journal.

[10]  S. L. Griffith,et al.  Four-Year Follow-up Results of Lumbar Spine Arthrodesis Using the Bagby and Kuslich Lumbar Fusion Cage , 2000, Spine.

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

[12]  A. M. Ahmed,et al.  Some static mechanical properties of the lumbar intervertebral joint, intact and injured. , 1982, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[13]  N. Langrana,et al.  Finite element analysis of vertebral body mechanics with a nonlinear microstructural model for the trabecular core. , 1999, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[14]  N. Langrana,et al.  Role of Ligaments and Facets in Lumbar Spinal Stability , 1995, Spine.

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

[16]  M. Aebi,et al.  Cages: designs and concepts , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[17]  T R Oxland,et al.  The Relative Importance of Vertebral Bone Density and Disc Degeneration in Spinal Flexibility and Interbody Implant Performance: An In Vitro Study , 1996, Spine.

[18]  D. R. Sumner,et al.  Biologic issues in lumbar spinal fusion. Introduction. 1995 Focus Issue Meeting on Fusion. , 1995, Spine.

[19]  V K Goel,et al.  A combined finite element and optimization investigation of lumbar spine mechanics with and without muscles. , 1993, Spine.

[20]  W C Hutton,et al.  Do Bending, Twisting, and Diurnal Fluid Changes in the Disc Affect the Propensity to Prolapse? A Viscoelastic Finite Element Model , 1996, Spine.

[21]  F. Kandziora,et al.  A New Stand-Alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Device: Biomechanical Comparison with Established Fixation Techniques , 2005, Spine.

[22]  J. Brantigan,et al.  Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial. , 2000, Spine.

[23]  Y Kim,et al.  Prediction of Mechanical Behaviors at Interfaces Between Bone and Two Interbody Cages of Lumbar Spine Segments , 2001, Spine.

[24]  W. Lo,et al.  Stress analysis of the disc adjacent to interbody fusion in lumbar spine. , 2001, Medical engineering & physics.

[25]  J Dubousset,et al.  A Biomechanical Analysis of Short Segment Spinal Fixation Using a Three-Dimensional Geometric and Mechanical Model , 1993, Spine.

[26]  J. van Limbeek,et al.  Anterior lumbar interbody fusion with threaded fusion cages and autologous bone grafts , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[27]  L. Claes,et al.  Stabilizing effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages before and after cyclic loading. , 1999, Journal of neurosurgery.

[28]  A. Tsantrizos,et al.  Segmental Stability and Compressive Strength of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Implants , 2000, Spine.