Finite analysis of stability between modified articular fusion technique, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posteriorlateral lumbar fusion

Abstract Background It is not clear whether modified facet fusion (MFF) is biomechanically different from traditional fusion techniques such as posterior lateral lumbar fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Methods In this study, a healthy adult Chinese male volunteer was select...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xiao Han, Xin Chen, Kuan Li, Zheng Li, Shugang Li
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: BMC 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/7456654a0afa4d9996954a0a70e85b1f
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:doaj.org-article:7456654a0afa4d9996954a0a70e85b1f
record_format dspace
spelling oai:doaj.org-article:7456654a0afa4d9996954a0a70e85b1f2021-12-05T12:18:15ZFinite analysis of stability between modified articular fusion technique, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posteriorlateral lumbar fusion10.1186/s12891-021-04899-x1471-2474https://doaj.org/article/7456654a0afa4d9996954a0a70e85b1f2021-12-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04899-xhttps://doaj.org/toc/1471-2474Abstract Background It is not clear whether modified facet fusion (MFF) is biomechanically different from traditional fusion techniques such as posterior lateral lumbar fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Methods In this study, a healthy adult Chinese male volunteer was selected to perform 3D reconstruction of CT image data and simulate the successful fusion of L4–5 MFF, PLF and PLIF, respectively. The motion range of L4–5 segments of the model was simulated under 6 working conditions, including forward flexion, extension, lateral flexion and rotation under normal physiological conditions, and the stability of the three fusion procedures in the pathological segments of the lumbar spine was compared. Results There was no difference in range of motion between MFF model and PLF or PLIF model (P < 0.05). Also, the stiffness of the PLFand the MFF model were comparable (P > 0.05), but were smaller than the PLIF model (P < 0.05). Conclusions MFF provides reliable stability at the lumbar fixation fusion level and does not differ significantly from PLF and PLIF in terms of range of motion.Xiao HanXin ChenKuan LiZheng LiShugang LiBMCarticleFinite elementSpinal fusionInternal fixationDiseases of the musculoskeletal systemRC925-935ENBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, Vol 22, Iss 1, Pp 1-11 (2021)
institution DOAJ
collection DOAJ
language EN
topic Finite element
Spinal fusion
Internal fixation
Diseases of the musculoskeletal system
RC925-935
spellingShingle Finite element
Spinal fusion
Internal fixation
Diseases of the musculoskeletal system
RC925-935
Xiao Han
Xin Chen
Kuan Li
Zheng Li
Shugang Li
Finite analysis of stability between modified articular fusion technique, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posteriorlateral lumbar fusion
description Abstract Background It is not clear whether modified facet fusion (MFF) is biomechanically different from traditional fusion techniques such as posterior lateral lumbar fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Methods In this study, a healthy adult Chinese male volunteer was selected to perform 3D reconstruction of CT image data and simulate the successful fusion of L4–5 MFF, PLF and PLIF, respectively. The motion range of L4–5 segments of the model was simulated under 6 working conditions, including forward flexion, extension, lateral flexion and rotation under normal physiological conditions, and the stability of the three fusion procedures in the pathological segments of the lumbar spine was compared. Results There was no difference in range of motion between MFF model and PLF or PLIF model (P < 0.05). Also, the stiffness of the PLFand the MFF model were comparable (P > 0.05), but were smaller than the PLIF model (P < 0.05). Conclusions MFF provides reliable stability at the lumbar fixation fusion level and does not differ significantly from PLF and PLIF in terms of range of motion.
format article
author Xiao Han
Xin Chen
Kuan Li
Zheng Li
Shugang Li
author_facet Xiao Han
Xin Chen
Kuan Li
Zheng Li
Shugang Li
author_sort Xiao Han
title Finite analysis of stability between modified articular fusion technique, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posteriorlateral lumbar fusion
title_short Finite analysis of stability between modified articular fusion technique, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posteriorlateral lumbar fusion
title_full Finite analysis of stability between modified articular fusion technique, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posteriorlateral lumbar fusion
title_fullStr Finite analysis of stability between modified articular fusion technique, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posteriorlateral lumbar fusion
title_full_unstemmed Finite analysis of stability between modified articular fusion technique, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posteriorlateral lumbar fusion
title_sort finite analysis of stability between modified articular fusion technique, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posteriorlateral lumbar fusion
publisher BMC
publishDate 2021
url https://doaj.org/article/7456654a0afa4d9996954a0a70e85b1f
work_keys_str_mv AT xiaohan finiteanalysisofstabilitybetweenmodifiedarticularfusiontechniqueposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionandposteriorlaterallumbarfusion
AT xinchen finiteanalysisofstabilitybetweenmodifiedarticularfusiontechniqueposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionandposteriorlaterallumbarfusion
AT kuanli finiteanalysisofstabilitybetweenmodifiedarticularfusiontechniqueposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionandposteriorlaterallumbarfusion
AT zhengli finiteanalysisofstabilitybetweenmodifiedarticularfusiontechniqueposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionandposteriorlaterallumbarfusion
AT shugangli finiteanalysisofstabilitybetweenmodifiedarticularfusiontechniqueposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusionandposteriorlaterallumbarfusion
_version_ 1718372080166109184