Effects of lumbar arthrodesis on adjacent segments: differences between surgical techniques

A finite element analysis. To evaluate the differences between surgical techniques in terms of the effects of arthrodesis on adjacent segments. Augmentation with posterior rigid fixation combined with transpedicular screw insertion, which is one of the most popular techniques for lumbar arthrodesis,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inSpine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976) Vol. 37; no. 17; p. 1456
Main Authors Kim, Tae Yup, Kang, Kyoung Tak, Yoon, Do Heum, Shin, Hyun Chul, Kim, Keung Nyun, Yi, Seong, Chun, Heoung Jae, Oh, Jae Keun, Choi, Gwi Hyun, Lee, 2nd, Kwang, Ha, Yoon
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States 01.08.2012
Subjects
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

Loading…
Abstract A finite element analysis. To evaluate the differences between surgical techniques in terms of the effects of arthrodesis on adjacent segments. Augmentation with posterior rigid fixation combined with transpedicular screw insertion, which is one of the most popular techniques for lumbar arthrodesis, shows benefits in immediate stabilization and a higher fusion rate but is reportedly correlated with greater stress on adjacent segments. However, the increased stress on adjacent segments needs further evaluation because the differences of the effects on adjacent segments between surgical techniques, including anterior lumbar interbody fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion, and semirigid fixation, have not yet been determined. A finite element model of the human lumbar spine was developed. Three spinal segments (L2-L5) were used to investigate. The intact spinal model was validated by comparing it with previously reported models. Then, 4 arthrodesis models were analyzed and compared: (1) anterior lumbar interbody fusion model; (2) posterior lumbar interbody fusion model; (3) semirigid fixation model combined with posterior lumbar interbody fusion; and (4) rigid fixation model combined with posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Among these 4 models, the rigid fixation model showed the greatest amount of stress, with increased intervertebral disc pressure and contact force of the facet joints of both upper and lower adjacent segments. The second highest stress levels were seen in the semirigid fixation model and the lowest stress levels were seen in the anterior lumbar interbody fusion model. Although bony fusion had been completed, the effects of lumbar arthrodesis on adjacent segments could vary according to the surgical technique used for arthrodesis. Semirigid fixation combined with arthrodesis deserves careful consideration and further detailed study because it may cause less stress on adjacent segments than rigid fixation while maintaining the benefits of the latter procedure.
AbstractList A finite element analysis. To evaluate the differences between surgical techniques in terms of the effects of arthrodesis on adjacent segments. Augmentation with posterior rigid fixation combined with transpedicular screw insertion, which is one of the most popular techniques for lumbar arthrodesis, shows benefits in immediate stabilization and a higher fusion rate but is reportedly correlated with greater stress on adjacent segments. However, the increased stress on adjacent segments needs further evaluation because the differences of the effects on adjacent segments between surgical techniques, including anterior lumbar interbody fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion, and semirigid fixation, have not yet been determined. A finite element model of the human lumbar spine was developed. Three spinal segments (L2-L5) were used to investigate. The intact spinal model was validated by comparing it with previously reported models. Then, 4 arthrodesis models were analyzed and compared: (1) anterior lumbar interbody fusion model; (2) posterior lumbar interbody fusion model; (3) semirigid fixation model combined with posterior lumbar interbody fusion; and (4) rigid fixation model combined with posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Among these 4 models, the rigid fixation model showed the greatest amount of stress, with increased intervertebral disc pressure and contact force of the facet joints of both upper and lower adjacent segments. The second highest stress levels were seen in the semirigid fixation model and the lowest stress levels were seen in the anterior lumbar interbody fusion model. Although bony fusion had been completed, the effects of lumbar arthrodesis on adjacent segments could vary according to the surgical technique used for arthrodesis. Semirigid fixation combined with arthrodesis deserves careful consideration and further detailed study because it may cause less stress on adjacent segments than rigid fixation while maintaining the benefits of the latter procedure.
Author Chun, Heoung Jae
Ha, Yoon
Kang, Kyoung Tak
Yi, Seong
Choi, Gwi Hyun
Oh, Jae Keun
Yoon, Do Heum
Kim, Keung Nyun
Lee, 2nd, Kwang
Kim, Tae Yup
Shin, Hyun Chul
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Tae Yup
  surname: Kim
  fullname: Kim, Tae Yup
  organization: Department of Neurosurgery, Guro Teun Teun Hospital, Seoul, Korea
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Kyoung Tak
  surname: Kang
  fullname: Kang, Kyoung Tak
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Do Heum
  surname: Yoon
  fullname: Yoon, Do Heum
– sequence: 4
  givenname: Hyun Chul
  surname: Shin
  fullname: Shin, Hyun Chul
– sequence: 5
  givenname: Keung Nyun
  surname: Kim
  fullname: Kim, Keung Nyun
– sequence: 6
  givenname: Seong
  surname: Yi
  fullname: Yi, Seong
– sequence: 7
  givenname: Heoung Jae
  surname: Chun
  fullname: Chun, Heoung Jae
– sequence: 8
  givenname: Jae Keun
  surname: Oh
  fullname: Oh, Jae Keun
– sequence: 9
  givenname: Gwi Hyun
  surname: Choi
  fullname: Choi, Gwi Hyun
– sequence: 10
  givenname: Kwang
  surname: Lee, 2nd
  fullname: Lee, 2nd, Kwang
– sequence: 11
  givenname: Yoon
  surname: Ha
  fullname: Ha, Yoon
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22333957$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNo1j9tKAzEYhIMo9qBvIJIX2JpDs_3jnZZ6gILg4cqLksOfdstutia7FN_eBXVuPhhmBmZCTmMbkZArzmac6cXN_evbjFnGJUoOYu4NcH9CxlwJKDhXekQmOe8ZY6Xk-pyMhJBSarUYk89VCOi6TNtA676xJlGTul1qPeZqcCM1fm8cxo5m3DYD8y311VBKGB1marE7Ikaa-7StnKlph24Xq68e8wU5C6bOePnHKfl4WL0vn4r1y-Pz8m5dOFmWXQHS8KBAoGbOQTnIIGfKW6vLMjDtQYMKAELNgTGr0RoOWgxRgwiGiym5_t099LZBvzmkqjHpe_P_UvwAe6JXSA
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_14245_ns_1836322_161
crossref_primary_10_1002_cnm_3214
crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0243771
crossref_primary_10_22603_ssrr_2018_0058
crossref_primary_10_1007_s10237_020_01403_7
crossref_primary_10_1590_s1808_185120171604175959
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jocn_2013_11_033
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clineuro_2021_107082
crossref_primary_10_3340_jkns_2016_59_2_91
crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0144637
crossref_primary_10_14245_ns_1836030_015
crossref_primary_10_14245_kjs_2016_13_2_57
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00586_015_4277_3
crossref_primary_10_1590_S1808_18512013000400006
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_wneu_2017_09_153
crossref_primary_10_3892_etm_2014_1645
ContentType Journal Article
DBID CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
DOI 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31824da81d
DatabaseName Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
DatabaseTitle MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
DatabaseTitleList MEDLINE
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 2
  dbid: EIF
  name: MEDLINE
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search
  sourceTypes: Index Database
DeliveryMethod no_fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Medicine
EISSN 1528-1159
ExternalDocumentID 22333957
Genre Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Journal Article
GroupedDBID ---
.-D
.XZ
.Z2
01R
0R~
123
1J1
354
40H
4Q1
4Q2
4Q3
53G
5RE
5VS
6PF
71W
77Y
7O~
A9M
AAAAV
AAAXR
AAGIX
AAHPQ
AAIQE
AAJCS
AAMOA
AAMTA
AAQQT
AARTV
AASOK
AAUEB
AAWTL
AAXQO
ABBUW
ABDIG
ABJNI
ABOCM
ABXVJ
ABZAD
ACCJW
ACDDN
ACDOF
ACEWG
ACGFO
ACGFS
ACIJW
ACILI
ACWDW
ACWRI
ACXNZ
ACZKN
ADGGA
ADHPY
ADNKB
AE3
AE6
AEETU
AENEX
AFDTB
AFEXH
AFFNX
AFNMH
AFUWQ
AGINI
AHOMT
AHQNM
AHVBC
AIJEX
AINUH
AJCLO
AJIOK
AJNWD
AJNYG
AJZMW
ALKUP
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
AMJPA
AMNEI
BOYCO
BQLVK
BYPQX
C45
CGR
CS3
CUY
CVF
DIWNM
DU5
DUNZO
E.X
EBS
ECM
EIF
EJD
EX3
F2K
F2L
F2M
F2N
F5P
FCALG
FL-
FW0
H0~
HZ~
IKREB
IKYAY
IN~
JF9
JG8
JK3
JK8
K8S
KD2
KMI
L-C
L7B
N9A
NPM
N~7
N~B
O9-
OAG
OAH
ODMTH
OHH
OHYEH
OL1
OLG
OLH
OLU
OLV
OLY
OLZ
OPUJH
OUVQU
OVD
OVDNE
OVIDH
OVLEI
OVOZU
OWBYB
OWU
OWV
OWW
OWX
OWY
OWZ
OXXIT
P2P
R2J
RLZ
S4R
S4S
SJN
TEORI
V2I
VVN
W3M
WH7
WOQ
WOW
X3V
X3W
XXN
XYM
YCJ
YFH
YOC
ZB8
ZFV
ZY1
ZZMQN
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-83a1f582e90cc86666ae105dbb966f09d8985f88254800b9eba1892c86aee8a12
IngestDate Thu Apr 03 07:01:14 EDT 2025
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 17
Language English
LinkModel OpenURL
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c366t-83a1f582e90cc86666ae105dbb966f09d8985f88254800b9eba1892c86aee8a12
PMID 22333957
ParticipantIDs pubmed_primary_22333957
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2012-08-01
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2012-08-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 08
  year: 2012
  text: 2012-08-01
  day: 01
PublicationDecade 2010
PublicationPlace United States
PublicationPlace_xml – name: United States
PublicationTitle Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976)
PublicationTitleAlternate Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
PublicationYear 2012
SSID ssj0006319
Score 2.1798375
Snippet A finite element analysis. To evaluate the differences between surgical techniques in terms of the effects of arthrodesis on adjacent segments. Augmentation...
SourceID pubmed
SourceType Index Database
StartPage 1456
SubjectTerms Arthrodesis - methods
Finite Element Analysis
Humans
Intervertebral Disc - physiopathology
Intervertebral Disc - surgery
Lumbar Vertebrae - physiopathology
Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery
Lumbosacral Region - physiopathology
Lumbosacral Region - surgery
Models, Biological
Reproducibility of Results
Spinal Fusion - methods
Zygapophyseal Joint - physiopathology
Zygapophyseal Joint - surgery
Title Effects of lumbar arthrodesis on adjacent segments: differences between surgical techniques
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22333957
Volume 37
hasFullText
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1Lb9QwELa2ICEuiDflJR-4RSmbxyYONyhFK1ARolupiENlJzYrULOr7u6h_A5-MN_E4yYqRTwu0crOWpHny_ibyfizEM8y8Hr4vDI2NYlqG1fExqk6zhosJkYnatxJCu2_L6aH-dujydFo9GNQtbRZm536-6X7Sv7HqmiDXWmX7D9Y9nxQNOA37IsrLIzrX9l4ry_GgI8x-pQki-ZwibaTGWkj3XzVVH4ZreyXbi8bJQDCmShUixXKtFabU-8CzzVdV0PaerBkMkr5FxKWXM59ke0HvRMl4BqDhAKfzzzTNvrEaS1q5bz0uzNyL-j91vsb_-H_9QJrIAtDdJqRXt1gerZpo9051y9yfoIKPVTIT1j2qSkC1YSFv9npeqWXAK5y4EKT3CuN_-LbvWbwq48HffI2zRsNwj28HfO4POnsDeKT0VfIP_deUNwOXVtiC7EHHaZKGSBe3Qv4rLAFsyqfX_Y4JDDNQ1wIVjrSMrspbnC0IV966NwSI9veFtf2uZ7ijvjMCJILJz2C5ABBctHKgCAZEPRCDvAjGT8y4Ef2-LkrDt_szXanMR-3EddZUaxjlenETVRqq3FdK4S1hbZg340xCInduGpUpSZOUUoBUYapLL3KVYpbtbVKJ-k9caVdtPaBkFVeggTZbNJolyeJwT-tKrVzGBmk0W6L-35ajpdeU-U4TNjD3_Y8Etd7eD0WVx1eYvsEjHBtnnYm-gmhtV8_
linkProvider National Library of Medicine
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effects+of+lumbar+arthrodesis+on+adjacent+segments%3A+differences+between+surgical+techniques&rft.jtitle=Spine+%28Philadelphia%2C+Pa.+1976%29&rft.au=Kim%2C+Tae+Yup&rft.au=Kang%2C+Kyoung+Tak&rft.au=Yoon%2C+Do+Heum&rft.au=Shin%2C+Hyun+Chul&rft.date=2012-08-01&rft.eissn=1528-1159&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=17&rft.spage=1456&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097%2FBRS.0b013e31824da81d&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F22333957&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F22333957&rft.externalDocID=22333957