Back to Search Start Over

Load distribution on intervertebral cages with and without posterior instrumentation

Authors :
Calek, Anna-Katharina; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5499-5096
Cornaz, Frédéric; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7911-0445
Suter, Mauro
Fasser, Marie-Rosa; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4984-4127
Baumgartner, Sina
Sager, Philipp
Farshad, Mazda; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7190-1127
Widmer, Jonas
Calek, Anna-Katharina; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5499-5096
Cornaz, Frédéric; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7911-0445
Suter, Mauro
Fasser, Marie-Rosa; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4984-4127
Baumgartner, Sina
Sager, Philipp
Farshad, Mazda; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7190-1127
Widmer, Jonas
Source :
Calek, Anna-Katharina; Cornaz, Frédéric; Suter, Mauro; Fasser, Marie-Rosa; Baumgartner, Sina; Sager, Philipp; Farshad, Mazda; Widmer, Jonas (2024). Load distribution on intervertebral cages with and without posterior instrumentation. The Spine Journal, 24(5):889-898.
Publication Year :
2024

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF, TLIF) are well-established procedures for spinal fusion. However, little is known about load sharing between cage, dorsal construct, and biological tissue within the instrumented lumbar spine. PURPOSE The aim of this study was to quantify the forces acting on cages under axial compression force with and without posterior instrumentation. STUDY DESIGN Biomechanical cadaveric study. METHODS Ten lumbar spinal segments were tested under uniaxial compression using load cell instrumented intervertebral cages. The force was increased in 100N increments to 1000N or a force greater than 500N on one load cell. Each specimen was tested after unilateral PLIF (uPLIF), bilateral PLIF (bPLIF) and TLIF each with/without posterior instrumentation. Dorsal instrumentation was performed with 55N of compression per side. RESULTS Cage insertion resulted in median cage preloads of 16N, 29N and 35N for uPLIF, bPLIF, and TLIF. The addition of compressed dorsal instrumentation increased the median preload to 224N, 328N, and 317N, respectively. With posterior instrumentation, the percentage of the external load acting on the intervertebral cage was less than 25% at 100N (uPLIF: 14.2%; bPLIF: 16%; TLIF: 11%), less than 45% at 500N (uPLIF: 31.8%; bPLIF: 41.1%; TLIF: 37.9%) and less than 50% at 1000N (uPLIF: 40.3%; bPLIF: 49.7%; TLIF: 43.4%). Without posterior instrumentation, the percentage of external load on the cages was significantly higher with values above 50% at 100N (uPLIF: 55.6%; bPLIF: 75.5%; TLIF: 66.8%), 500N (uPLIF: 71.7%; bPLIF: 79.2%; TLIF: 65.4%), and 1000N external load (uPLIF: 73%; bPLIF: 80.5%; TLIF: 66.1%). For absolute loads, preloads and external loads must be added together. CONCLUSIONS Without posterior instrumentation, the intervertebral cages absorb more than 50% of the axial load and the load distribution is largely independent of the loading amplitude. With posterior instrumentation, the e

Details

Database :
OAIster
Journal :
Calek, Anna-Katharina; Cornaz, Frédéric; Suter, Mauro; Fasser, Marie-Rosa; Baumgartner, Sina; Sager, Philipp; Farshad, Mazda; Widmer, Jonas (2024). Load distribution on intervertebral cages with and without posterior instrumentation. The Spine Journal, 24(5):889-898.
Notes :
application/pdf, info:doi/10.5167/uzh-254444, English, English
Publication Type :
Electronic Resource
Accession number :
edsoai.on1443057283
Document Type :
Electronic Resource