TY - JOUR
T1 - Biomechanical comparison of cervical discectomy/fusion model using allograft spacers between anterior and posterior fixation methods (lateral mass and pedicle screw)
AU - Kwon, Ji won
AU - Bang, Sun Hee
AU - Park, Tae Hyun
AU - Lee, Sung Jae
AU - Lee, Hwan Mo
AU - Lee, Soo Bin
AU - Lee, Byung Ho
AU - Moon, Seong Hwan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2020/3
Y1 - 2020/3
N2 - Background: The purpose of this study is to investigate effects of different fixation methods on the physical stress on allospacers, endplate-vertebral body, and implants using finite element model analyses. Methods: Stress distribution and subsidence risk according to the fixation methods under the condition of hybrid motion control were analyzed. The detailed finite element model of a previously validated, three-dimensional, intact cervical spinal segment model, with C5–C6 segmental fusion using allospacer, was used to evaluate the biomechanical characteristics of different fixation combinations, such as anterior plate/screws, lateral mass screw, and posterior pedicle screw. Findings: The load sharing on allospacers increased in extension in order of posterior pedicle screws (21.4%), lateral mass screws (31.5%), and anterior plate/screws (56.6%). lateral mass screw demonstrated the highest load sharing (68.1%) on the allospacer in flexion. The Peak von Mises stress of the allospacer was the lowest in flexion and axial rotation but the highest in extension with anterior plate/screws. Allospacer subsidence risk was the lowest in extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation with posterior pedicle screws but the lowest in flexion with anterior plate/screws. The bone-screw loosening risk was the lowest in all modes with posterior pedicle screws but the highest with anterior plate/screws. Interpretation: Posterior pedicle screws demonstrated the best mechanical stability of allospacer failure-subsidence and the lowest risk of screw loosening. Different motion restrictions depending on the fixation method should be considered for implant and allospacer safety.
AB - Background: The purpose of this study is to investigate effects of different fixation methods on the physical stress on allospacers, endplate-vertebral body, and implants using finite element model analyses. Methods: Stress distribution and subsidence risk according to the fixation methods under the condition of hybrid motion control were analyzed. The detailed finite element model of a previously validated, three-dimensional, intact cervical spinal segment model, with C5–C6 segmental fusion using allospacer, was used to evaluate the biomechanical characteristics of different fixation combinations, such as anterior plate/screws, lateral mass screw, and posterior pedicle screw. Findings: The load sharing on allospacers increased in extension in order of posterior pedicle screws (21.4%), lateral mass screws (31.5%), and anterior plate/screws (56.6%). lateral mass screw demonstrated the highest load sharing (68.1%) on the allospacer in flexion. The Peak von Mises stress of the allospacer was the lowest in flexion and axial rotation but the highest in extension with anterior plate/screws. Allospacer subsidence risk was the lowest in extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation with posterior pedicle screws but the lowest in flexion with anterior plate/screws. The bone-screw loosening risk was the lowest in all modes with posterior pedicle screws but the highest with anterior plate/screws. Interpretation: Posterior pedicle screws demonstrated the best mechanical stability of allospacer failure-subsidence and the lowest risk of screw loosening. Different motion restrictions depending on the fixation method should be considered for implant and allospacer safety.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85079272194&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85079272194&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.01.018
DO - 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.01.018
M3 - Article
C2 - 32062472
AN - SCOPUS:85079272194
SN - 0268-0033
VL - 73
SP - 226
EP - 233
JO - Clinical Biomechanics
JF - Clinical Biomechanics
ER -