Advances in the Standards & Applied Sciences

Advances in the Standards & Applied Sciences

Effect of pedicle-screw fixation on the biomechanics of the lumbar spine: A Case Study finite element analysis

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Kamran Hassani 1
Hajir Karimi 1
Shahrokh Shojaei 2
Pedram Tehrani 3
1 Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Medical Science and Technologies, Tehran Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran
10.22034/asas.2023.406496.1026
Abstract
The pedicle-screw fixation is widely used for the surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. The biomechanical effects of the fusion on the vertebral bodies have not still been investigated in detail. In this study, we intended to calculate the stress and strain of the vertebral bodies and intervertebral discs of the lumbar spine after posterior pedicle-screw fixation (PPSF). A three-dimensional (3D) patient-specific finite element (FE) model of the human L1 to L5 spine was established based on the computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images. A preload along with a sinusoidal load, were applied to the proximal end (L1). The distal end (L5) was fixed in all directions. The highest stress and strain were observed in the intervertebral disc of L4-L5 and L1-L2. The stress and strain of the unilateral pedicle-screw were higher than the bilateral ones. The results suggested that the unilateral pedicle-screw provides greater stability comparing to bilateral fixation in posterior bending position. The results have implications not only for understanding the stress and strain of the vertebral bodies and intervertebral discs but also, they give comprehensive information to the biomechanical and medical experts concerning the stability of the spine in the posterior bending position.
Keywords
Pedicle-screw fixation
Lumbar spine
Posterior fixation
von Mises stress
Finite element analys
Subjects
[1] Sato T, Yonezawa I, Todo M, Takano H, Kaneko K. Biomechanical Effects of Implant Materials on Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison of Polyetheretherketone and Titanium Spacers Using Finite Element Analysis and Considering Bone Density. J Biomed Sci Eng 2018;11:45.
[2] Matge G. Cervical cage fusion with 5 different implants: 250 cases. Acta Neurochir 2002;144:539-50.
[3] Ottardi C, Galbusera F, Luca A, Prosdocimo L, Sasso M, Brayda-Bruno M, et al. Finite element analysis of the lumbar destabilization following pedicle subtraction osteotomy. Med Eng Phys 2016;38:506-9.
[4] Luca A, Ottardi C, Lovi A, Brayda-Bruno M, Villa T, Galbusera F. Anterior support reduces the stresses on the posterior instrumentation after pedicle subtraction osteotomy: a finite-element study. Europ Spine J 2017;26:450-6.
[5] Cunningham BW. Basic scientific considerations in total disc arthroplasty. Spine J 2004;4:S219-S30.
[6] Lee CK. Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine 1988;13:375-7.
[7] Eck KR, Bridwell KH, Ungacta FF, Lapp MA, Lenke LG, Riew KD. Analysis of titanium mesh cages in adults with minimum two-year follow-up. Spine 2000;25:2407-15.
[8] Kuslich SD, Danielson G, Dowdle JD, Sherman J, Fredrickson B, Yuan H, et al. Four-year follow-up results of lumbar spine arthrodesis using the Bagby and Kuslich lumbar fusion cage. Spine 2000;25:2656-62.
[9] Fritzell P, Hägg O, Nordwall A. Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain: comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective randomized study. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Europ Spine J 2003;12:178-89.
[10] Hilibrand AS, Robbins M. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 2004;4:S190-S4.
[11] Nemoto O, Asazuma T, Yato Y, Imabayashi H, Yasuoka H, Fujikawa A. Comparison of fusion rates following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using polyetheretherketone cages or titanium cages with transpedicular instrumentation. Europ Spine J 2014;23:2150-5.
[12] Wang Z, Fu S, Wu Z-x, Zhang Y, Lei W. Ti2448 pedicle screw system augmentation for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2013;38:2008-15.
[13] Vadapalli S, Sairyo K, Goel VK, Robon M, Biyani A, Khandha A, et al. Biomechanical rationale for using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) spacers for lumbar interbody fusion–a finite element study. Spine 2006;31:E992-E8.
[14] Xiao Z, Wang L, Gong H, Zhu D. Biomechanical evaluation of three surgical scenarios of posterior lumbar interbody fusion by finite element analysis. Biomed Eng Online 2012;11:31.
[15] Yang T, Chen K, Lv Y. Fatigue life analysis of fixed structure of posterior thoracolumbar pedicle screw. Engineering 2013;5:292.
[16] Major Š, Kocour V, Cyrus P. Fatigue life prediction of pedicle screw for spinal surgery. Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale 2016;10:379-88.
[17] Amaritsakul Y, Chao C-K, Lin J. Biomechanical evaluation of bending strength of spinal pedicle screws, including cylindrical, conical, dual core and double dual core designs using numerical simulations and mechanical tests. Med Eng Phys 2014;36:1218-23.
[18] Chen S-H, Lin S-C, Tsai W-C, Wang C-W, Chao S-H. Biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral pedicle screws fixation for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion after decompressive surgery--a finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord012;13:72.
[19] Lindsey C, Deviren V, Xu Z, Yeh R-F, Puttlitz CM. The effects of rod contouring on spinal construct fatigue strength. Spine 2006;31:1680-7.
[20] Su BW, Shimer AL, Chinthakunta S, Salloum K, Ames CP, Vaccaro AR, et al. Comparison of fatigue strength of C2 pedicle screws, C2 pars screws, and a hybrid construct in C1–C2 fixation. Spine 2014;39:E12-E9.
[21] Chou W-K, Chien A, Wang J-L. Biomechanical analysis between PEEK and titanium screw-rods spinal construct subjected to fatigue loading. Clin Spine Surg 2015;28:E121-E5.
[22] Biswas JK, Rana M, Majumder S, Karmakar SK, Roychowdhury A. Effect of two-level pedicle-screw fixation with different rod materials on lumbar spine: A finite element study. J Orthop Sci 2018;23:258-65.
[23] Lee H-H. Finite element simulations with ANSYS Workbench 17: SDC publications; 2017.
[24] Gillet P. The fate of the adjacent motion segments after lumbar fusion. Spine 2003;28:338-45.
[25] Sengupta DK. Dynamic stabilization devices in the treatment of low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am 2004;35:43-56.
[26] Mulholland RC, Sengupta DK. Rationale, principles and experimental evaluation of the concept of soft stabilization.  Arthroplasty of the Spine: Springer; 2004. p. 142-9.
[27] Fan W, Guo L-X. Finite element investigation of the effect of nucleus removal on vibration characteristics of the lumbar spine under a compressive follower preload. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2018;78:342-51.
[28] Sengul E, Ozmen R, Yaman ME, Demir T. Influence of posterior pedicle screw fixation at L4-L5 level on biomechanics of the lumbar spine with and without fusion: a finite element method. Biomed Eng Online. 2021 Oct 7;20(1):98. doi: 10.1186/s12938-021-00940-1. PMID: 34620170; PMCID: PMC8499536.
[29] Pan, J.-H.; Chen, C.-S.; Liu, C.-L.; Chou, P.-H. Biomechanical Effects of a Novel Pedicle Screw W-Type Rod Fixation for Lumbar Spondylolysis: A Finite Element Analysis. Bioengineering 2023, 10, 451. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10040451
[30] Xu C, Huang C, Cai P, Fang Z, Wei Z, Liu F, Li J, Liu Y. Biomechanical Effects of Pedicle Screw Positioning on the Surgical Segment in Models After Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An in-silico Study. Int J Gen Med. 2022;15:1047-1056. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S352304
Advances in the Standards & Applied Sciences
Volume 1, Issue 3
Spring 2023
Pages 28-33