Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Double Banana Cages: Clinical Evaluations and Finite Element Model Analysis.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Global Spine Journal Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-03-21 DOI:10.1177/21925682231165709
Kazunari Fushimi, Takaki Miyagawa, Chizuo Iwai, Satoshi Nozawa, Nobuki Iinuma, Ryo Tanaka, Goshi Shirai, Hiroyuki Tanahashi, Tatsuo Yokoi, Haruhiko Akiyama
{"title":"Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Double Banana Cages: Clinical Evaluations and Finite Element Model Analysis.","authors":"Kazunari Fushimi, Takaki Miyagawa, Chizuo Iwai, Satoshi Nozawa, Nobuki Iinuma, Ryo Tanaka, Goshi Shirai, Hiroyuki Tanahashi, Tatsuo Yokoi, Haruhiko Akiyama","doi":"10.1177/21925682231165709","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Clinical and basic study.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to investigate whether transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using 2 banana-shaped cages leads to good clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>First, we conducted a clinical study to compare outcomes among patients who underwent TLIF using different types or numbers of cages. Propensity matched patients in each group were reviewed. Thirty-four patients who underwent surgery with 2 bullet-shaped cages (group A), 34 with a banana-shaped cage (group B), and 34 with 2 banana-shaped cages (group C) were compared. Twelve months after the surgery, bony fusion and cage subsidence were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean amount of cage subsidence was 14.9% in group A, 19.9% in group B, and 11.8% in group C. Subsidence in group B was significantly greater than that in group C (<i>P</i> < .01). Radiological bony fusion was not achieved in 2 cases in group B. Second, we performed a finite element model (FEM) analysis to determine the biomechanical stress of the vertebral endplate by comparing the single-banana cage construct with a double banana-shaped cage construct. FEM analysis showed that the maximum stress of the endplate in the single-cage model was 1.72-times greater than the maximum stress in the double-cage model. Furthermore, the maximal stress in the single-cage model was significantly higher than in the double-cage model during lumbar extension and side bending.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study showed that TLIF with double banana-shaped cages led to good clinical outcomes with less cage subsidence, probably because of decreased mechanical stress on the vertebral endplate.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11418724/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682231165709","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Clinical and basic study.

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate whether transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using 2 banana-shaped cages leads to good clinical outcomes.

Methods: First, we conducted a clinical study to compare outcomes among patients who underwent TLIF using different types or numbers of cages. Propensity matched patients in each group were reviewed. Thirty-four patients who underwent surgery with 2 bullet-shaped cages (group A), 34 with a banana-shaped cage (group B), and 34 with 2 banana-shaped cages (group C) were compared. Twelve months after the surgery, bony fusion and cage subsidence were evaluated.

Results: The mean amount of cage subsidence was 14.9% in group A, 19.9% in group B, and 11.8% in group C. Subsidence in group B was significantly greater than that in group C (P < .01). Radiological bony fusion was not achieved in 2 cases in group B. Second, we performed a finite element model (FEM) analysis to determine the biomechanical stress of the vertebral endplate by comparing the single-banana cage construct with a double banana-shaped cage construct. FEM analysis showed that the maximum stress of the endplate in the single-cage model was 1.72-times greater than the maximum stress in the double-cage model. Furthermore, the maximal stress in the single-cage model was significantly higher than in the double-cage model during lumbar extension and side bending.

Conclusion: This study showed that TLIF with double banana-shaped cages led to good clinical outcomes with less cage subsidence, probably because of decreased mechanical stress on the vertebral endplate.

经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术与双香蕉固定架:临床评估和有限元模型分析。
研究设计临床和基础研究:本研究旨在探讨使用 2 个香蕉形椎间融合器进行经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)是否会带来良好的临床疗效:方法:首先,我们进行了一项临床研究,比较使用不同类型或数量的椎体间融合器进行 TLIF 的患者的疗效。我们对每组倾向匹配的患者进行了复查。对 34 名使用 2 个子弹形钢筋笼的患者(A 组)、34 名使用 1 个香蕉形钢筋笼的患者(B 组)和 34 名使用 2 个香蕉形钢筋笼的患者(C 组)进行了比较。术后 12 个月,对骨融合和笼子下沉情况进行评估:A组、B组和C组的笼子平均下沉率分别为14.9%、19.9%和11.8%,B组的下沉率明显高于C组(P < .01)。其次,我们进行了有限元模型(FEM)分析,通过比较单香蕉笼结构和双香蕉笼结构,确定了椎体终板的生物力学应力。有限元分析表明,单椎笼模型的椎体终板最大应力是双椎笼模型的1.72倍。此外,在腰椎伸展和侧弯时,单椎笼模型的最大应力明显高于双椎笼模型:本研究表明,使用双香蕉型椎笼的 TLIF 临床疗效较好,椎笼下沉较少,这可能是因为椎体终板的机械应力降低了。
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
Global Spine Journal
Global Spine Journal Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
278
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Spine Journal (GSJ) is the official scientific publication of AOSpine. A peer-reviewed, open access journal, devoted to the study and treatment of spinal disorders, including diagnosis, operative and non-operative treatment options, surgical techniques, and emerging research and clinical developments.GSJ is indexed in PubMedCentral, SCOPUS, and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).
×
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