Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lumbar subtotal corpectomy non-fusion model produced using a novel prosthesis

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

In this study, we aimed to design a movable artificial lumbar complex (MALC) prosthesis for non-fusion reconstruction after lumbar subtotal corpectomy and to establish an in vitro anterolateral lumbar corpectomy non-fusion model for evaluating the biomechanical stability, preservation of segment movements and influence on adjacent inter-vertebral movements of this prosthesis.

Methods

Imaging was performed on a total of 26 fresh goat lumbar spine specimens to determine which of the specimens did not meet the requirements (free of deformity and fractures); the residual specimens were randomly divided into an intact group, a fusion group and a non-fusion group. Bone mineral density (BMD) was tested and compared among the three groups. Biomechanical testing was conducted to obtain the range of motion (ROM) in flexion–extension, lateral bending at L2–3, L3–4 and L4–5 and axial rotation at L2–5 in the three groups.

Results

Two specimens were excluded due to vertebral fractures. BMD showed no statistical significance among three groups (P > 0.05). The stability of the prosthesis did not differ significantly during flexion, extension, and lateral bending at L2–3, L3–4, and L4–5 and axial torsion at L2–5 between the intact group and the non-fusion group (P > 0.05). Segment movements of the specimens in the non-fusion group revealed significantly decreased L2–3 ROM and significantly increased L3–4 and L4–5 ROM in flexion and lateral bending compared with the fusion group (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Reconstruction with a MALC prosthesis after lumbar subtotal corpectomy not only produced instant stability but also effectively preserved segment movements, without any abnormal gain of mobility in adjacent inter-vertebral spaces. However, additional studies, including in vivo animal experiments as well as biocompatibility and biomechanical tests of human body specimens are needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Liu P, Sun MW, Li SJ et al (2015) A retrospective controlled study of three different operative approaches for the treatment of thoracic and lumbar spinal tuberculosis: three years of follow-up. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 128(3):25–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wang JF, Liu P (2015) Analysis of surgical approaches for unstable thoracolumbar burst fracture: minimum of five year follow-up. J Pak Med Assoc 65(2):201–205

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Denaro V, Denaro L, Albo E et al (2016) Surgical management of spinal fractures and neurological involvement in patients with myeloma. Injury 47(Suppl 4):S49–S53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Serak J, Vanni S, Levi AD (2015) The extreme lateral approach for treatment of thoracic and lumbar vertebral body metastases. J Neurosurg Sci (Epub ahead of print)

  5. Sung SH, Chang UK (2014) Clinical significance of radiological stability in reconstructed thoracic and lumbar spine following vertebral body resection. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 56(4):323–329

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Pan AX, Hai Y, Yang JC et al (2016) Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal fusion compared with motion-preservation procedures: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 25(5):1522–1532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang C, Berven SH, Fortin M et al (2016) Adjacent segment degeneration versus disease after lumbar spine fusion for degenerative pathology: a systematic review with meta-analysis of the literature. Clin Spine Surg 1(29):21–29

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kim HJ, Kang KT, Chun HJ et al (2015) The influence of intrinsic disc degeneration of the adjacent segments on its stress distribution after one-level lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J 24(4):827–837

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rao MJ, Cao SS (2014) Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134(2):149–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wilke HJ, Kettle A, Claes LE (1997) Are sheep spines a valid biomechanical model for human spines?. Spine 22(20):2365–2374

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sheng SR, Wang XY, Xu HZ et al (2010) Anatomy of large animal spines and its comparison to the human spine: a systematic review. Euro Spine J 19(1):46–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Smit TH (2002) The use of a quadruped as an in vivo model for the study of the spine-biomechanical considerations. Eur Spine J 11(2):137–144

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Ren LX, Jiao SG, Yin J et al (2009) Effect of percutaneous laser disc decompression on normal goat lumbar biomechanical stability. Chin J Spine Spinal Cord 19(9):689–692

    Google Scholar 

  14. Zhou Z, Wang X, Wu Z et al (2017) Epidemiological characteristics of primary spinal osseous tumors in Eastern China. World J Surg Oncol 15(1):73

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Grivna M, Eid HO, Abu-Zidan FM (2015) Epidemiology of spinal injuries in the United Arab Emirates. World J Emerg Surg 10:20

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Hamdi FA (1969) Prosthesis for an excised lumbar vertebra: a preliminary report. Can Med Assoc J 100(12):576–580

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Paulzak AN, Rusyniak WG, Gonzalez RP et al (2015) Lumbar corpectomy via retroperitoneal approach: a case series of 42 patients with traumatic lumbar fracture. J Am Coll Surg 221(4Suppl2):e143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang W, Liu S, He G et al (2016) Application of laparoscopic lumbar discectomy and artificial disc replacement: at least two years of follow-up. Spine 41(Suppl 19):B38–B43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Qin J, He XJ, Wang D et al (2012) Artificial cervical vertebra and intervertebral complex replacement through the anterior approach in animal model: a biomechanical and in vivo evaluation of a successful goat model. PLoS One 7(12):1–13

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Dong J, Lu M, He XJ et al (2015) Artificial disc and vertebra system: a novel motion preservation device for cervical spinal disease after vertebral corpectomy. Clinics 70(7):493–499

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Yu J, Liu LT, Zhao JN (2013) Design and preliminary biomechanical analysis of artificial cervical joint complex. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133(6):735–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Xiao J, Huang Y-C, Lam SKL, Luk KDK (2015) Surgical technique for lumbar intervertebral disc transplantation in a goat model. Eur Spine J 24(9):1951–1958

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Huang Y-C, Xiao J, Lu WW, Leung VYL, Hu Y, Luk KDK (2017) Lumbar intervertebral disc allograft transplantation: long-term mobility and impact on the adjacent segments. Eur Spine J 26(3):799–805

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Weber MH, Fortin M, Shen J et al. (2016) Graft subsidence and revision rates following anterior cervical corpectomy: a clinical study comparing different interbody cages. Clin Spine Surg. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000000428

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to Lu Teng, Wen Zhijing, Wang Yibin and Liang Hui. They gave us a lot of support and help during the study. I also owe a special debt of gratitude to the fund “Design and basic research of artificial atlanto-odontoid joint” (No. xjtc2014 001). In the financial support of it, we finally successfully completed this experiment.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, No. 157, The West Fifth Road, Xincheng District, Xi’an, Shaanxi, People’s Republic of China

    Jiantao Liu, Zhengchao Gao, Yuhuan Li, Binbin Niu & Xijing He

  2. Department of Orthopedics, The Fourth Hospital of Xi’an, Xi’an, Shaanxi, People’s Republic of China

    Feng Zhang

Authors
  1. Jiantao Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Feng Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhengchao Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yuhuan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Binbin Niu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xijing He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xijing He.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has potential conflict of interest and the manuscript has been approved by all authors for publication.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, J., Zhang, F., Gao, Z. et al. Lumbar subtotal corpectomy non-fusion model produced using a novel prosthesis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137, 1467–1476 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2753-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2753-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation