Biomechanical Evaluation of the Effect of MIS and COS Surgical Techniques on Patients with Spondylolisthesis using a Musculoskeletal Model.

Q3 Medicine
Sajad Azizi, Mohammad Nikkhoo, Mostafa Rostami, Chih-Hsiu Cheng
{"title":"Biomechanical Evaluation of the Effect of MIS and COS Surgical Techniques on Patients with Spondylolisthesis using a Musculoskeletal Model.","authors":"Sajad Azizi, Mohammad Nikkhoo, Mostafa Rostami, Chih-Hsiu Cheng","doi":"10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2406-1781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The biomechanical impacts of Conventional Open Surgery (COS) versus Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) fusion techniques on adjacent segments and their potential role in developing Adjacent Segment Disease (ASD) remain uncertain for spondylolisthesis.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to investigate the impact of MIS and COS fusion surgeries on adjacent spinal segments for spondylolisthesis, through on muscle injury and developing ASD.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This prospective and non-randomized controls study used a validated musculoskeletal model to compare the biomechanical effects of COS and MIS L<sub>4</sub>/L<sub>5</sub> fusion surgery on patients with spondylolisthesis. The model incorporated kinematic data from 30 patients who underwent each surgery. A sitting task was simulated to model post-operative muscle atrophy, and the analysis focused on changes in biomechanics of adjacent spinal segments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Lumbar flexion was significantly greater (201%) in MIS vs. COS, despite similar pelvic tilt. Consequently, Lumbopelvic Rhythm (LPR) also increased in MIS (133%). Both techniques altered inter-segmental moments. While inter-joint load was higher in COS, only the lower joint's compressive load was significantly greater (67%). Additionally, MIS required lower overall muscle force with reduced loads and passive moment on spinal joints compared to COS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrates that MIS fusion preserves physiological LPR better than COS. MIS maintains normal spinal curvature and maintains lumbar lordosis. While open surgery can lead to abnormal curvature and increased muscle forces to compensate for spinal stability. The study emphasizes the importance of paraspinal muscles in influencing spinal load distribution during MIS compare to COS.</p>","PeriodicalId":38035,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering","volume":"15 1","pages":"49-66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11833159/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2406-1781","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The biomechanical impacts of Conventional Open Surgery (COS) versus Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) fusion techniques on adjacent segments and their potential role in developing Adjacent Segment Disease (ASD) remain uncertain for spondylolisthesis.

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the impact of MIS and COS fusion surgeries on adjacent spinal segments for spondylolisthesis, through on muscle injury and developing ASD.

Material and methods: This prospective and non-randomized controls study used a validated musculoskeletal model to compare the biomechanical effects of COS and MIS L4/L5 fusion surgery on patients with spondylolisthesis. The model incorporated kinematic data from 30 patients who underwent each surgery. A sitting task was simulated to model post-operative muscle atrophy, and the analysis focused on changes in biomechanics of adjacent spinal segments.

Results: Lumbar flexion was significantly greater (201%) in MIS vs. COS, despite similar pelvic tilt. Consequently, Lumbopelvic Rhythm (LPR) also increased in MIS (133%). Both techniques altered inter-segmental moments. While inter-joint load was higher in COS, only the lower joint's compressive load was significantly greater (67%). Additionally, MIS required lower overall muscle force with reduced loads and passive moment on spinal joints compared to COS.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that MIS fusion preserves physiological LPR better than COS. MIS maintains normal spinal curvature and maintains lumbar lordosis. While open surgery can lead to abnormal curvature and increased muscle forces to compensate for spinal stability. The study emphasizes the importance of paraspinal muscles in influencing spinal load distribution during MIS compare to COS.

利用肌肉骨骼模型评价MIS和COS手术技术对腰椎滑脱患者的生物力学影响。
背景:传统开放手术(COS)与微创手术(MIS)融合技术对相邻节段的生物力学影响及其在腰椎滑脱中发生相邻节段疾病(ASD)的潜在作用尚不确定。目的:本研究旨在探讨MIS和COS融合手术对脊柱滑脱相邻脊柱节段的影响,通过对肌肉损伤和发生ASD的影响。材料和方法:这项前瞻性、非随机对照研究使用了一个经过验证的肌肉骨骼模型来比较COS和MIS L4/L5融合手术对腰椎滑脱患者的生物力学效果。该模型纳入了30例接受手术的患者的运动学数据。通过坐位模拟术后肌肉萎缩,分析相邻脊柱节段的生物力学变化。结果:尽管骨盆倾斜相似,但MIS患者的腰椎屈曲明显大于COS患者(201%)。因此,MIS患者腰盆腔节律(LPR)也升高(133%)。这两种技术都改变了段间力矩。虽然关节间载荷在COS中较高,但只有下关节的压缩载荷显著较大(67%)。此外,与COS相比,MIS需要更低的整体肌肉力,减少负荷和脊柱关节的被动力矩。结论:MIS融合比COS更能保留生理性LPR。MIS维持正常的脊柱曲度和腰椎前凸。而开放手术可能导致异常弯曲和增加肌肉力量来补偿脊柱的稳定性。与COS相比,该研究强调了脊髓旁肌肉在MIS期间影响脊柱负荷分布的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering
Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering (JBPE) is a bimonthly peer-reviewed English-language journal that publishes high-quality basic sciences and clinical research (experimental or theoretical) broadly concerned with the relationship of physics to medicine and engineering.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信