Relation between radiological assessment and biomechanical stability of lumbar interbody fusion in a large animal model
- 479 Downloads
To relate the progress of vertebral segmental stability after interbody fusion surgery with radiological assessment of spinal fusion.
Twenty goats received double-level interbody fusion and were followed for a period of 3, 6 and 12 months. After killing, interbody fusion was assessed radiographically by two independent observers. Subsequently, the lumbar spines were subjected to four-point bending and rotational deformation, assessed with an optoelectronic 3D movement registration system. In addition, four caprine lumbar spines were analysed in both the native situation and after the insertion of a cage device, as to mimic the direct post-surgical situation. The range of motion (ROM) in flexion/extension, lateral bending and axial rotation was analysed ex vivo using a multi-segment testing system.
Significant reduction in ROM in the operated segments was already achieved with moderate bone ingrowth in flexion/extension (71 % reduction in ROM) and with only limited bone ingrowth in lateral bending (71 % reduction in ROM) compared to the post-surgical situation. The presence of a sentinel sign always resulted in a stable vertebral segment in both flexion/extension and lateral bending. For axial rotation, the ROM was already limited in both native and cage inserted situations, resulting in non-significant differences for all radiographic scores.
In vivo vertebral segment stability, defined as a significant reduction in ROM, is achieved in an early stage of spinal fusion, well before a radiological bony fusion between the vertebrae can be observed. Therefore, plain radiography underestimates vertebral segment stability.
KeywordsLumbar spinal fusion Animal model Motion-segment stability Mechanical testing Radiography
This study was supported by the Dutch Program for Tissue Engineering (DPTE; #BGT 6734). The authors thank Klaas Walter Meijer, Paul Sinnige, Jerry Middelberg and Ger Vink from the animal facilities and Pieter Paul Vergroesen from the orthopaedic surgery department for their assistance during animal surgery and autopsy and Suzanne van Engelen from the Faculty of Human Movement Sciences for her assistance with mechanical testing of the spines.
Conflict of interest
Supplementary material 1 (MPG 29936 kb)
- 2.Bozkus H, Chamberlain RH, Perez Garza LE, Crawford NR, Dickman CA (2004) Biomechanical comparison of anterolateral plate, lateral plate, and pedicle screws-rods for enhancing anterolateral lumbar interbody cage stabilization. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:635–641Google Scholar
- 3.Busscher I, van Dieen JH, Kingma I et al (2009) Biomechanical characteristics of different regions of the human spine: an in vitro study on multilevel spinal segments. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2858–2864Google Scholar
- 5.Dawson-Saunders B, Trapp RG (1994) Basic and clinical biostatistics, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall International Inc, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
- 6.Erulkar JS, Grauer JN, Patel TC, Panjabi MM (2001) Flexibility analysis of posterolateral fusions in a New Zealand white rabbit model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:1125–1130Google Scholar
- 8.Goel VK, Pope MH (1995) Biomechanics of fusion and stabilization. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:85S–99SGoogle Scholar
- 9.Hoogendoorn RJ, Helder MN, Wuisman PI et al (2008) Adjacent segment degeneration: observations in a goat spinal fusion study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1337–1343Google Scholar
- 16.Mcafee PC (1999) Interbody fusion cages in reconstructive operations on the spine. J Bone Jt Surg Am 81:859–880Google Scholar
- 17.Mcafee PC, Boden SD, Brantigan JW et al (2001) Symposium: a critical discrepancy—a criteria of successful arthrodesis following interbody spinal fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:320–334Google Scholar
- 27.Zdeblick TA, Phillips FM (2003) Interbody cage devices. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:S2–S7Google Scholar