Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Which posterior instrumentation is better for two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion: translaminar facet screw or pedicle screw?

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

Abstract

Purpose

To determine whether translaminar facet screws can provide stability equivalent to pedicle screws and whether the two posterior instrumentations have the same influence on the adjacent segments in two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Methods

In a biomechanical study conducted, we used 12 fresh human lumbar spines and tested an intact spine with a stand-alone two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion and anterior fusion augmented with pedicle screws or translaminar facet screws, under 400 N compressive preloads and 7.5 N m moments in flexion, extension, axial rotation and lateral bending, and measured the stiffness of the operated level, range of motion and intradiscal pressure at the adjacent levels.

Results

We found a significant increase in the stiffness of the segments operated, range of motion and intradiscal pressure at the adjacent superior segment in the stand-alone two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion during flexion, axial rotation and lateral bending, but a decrease in extension, when compared with the intact spine. The stiffness of operated segments, range of motion and intradiscal pressure in the adjacent segment are significantly higher in the two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion augmented with posterior instrumentation than in the stand-alone two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion. There was no significant difference between the two augmented constructs except that, at the adjacent superior segment, the intradiscal pressure was more in the construction augmented with a pedicle screw than with a translaminar facet screw in flexion.

Conclusions

Translaminar facet screws can provide stability equivalent to pedicle screws, but their influence on the adjacent segments is relatively lower; therefore, we suggest that translaminar facet screws be the choice in the optimal posterior instrumentation in a two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tang S, Xu W, Rebholz BJ (2012) Anterior lumbar interbody fusion combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar instability: minimum four-year follow-up. Turk Neurosurg 22(2):156–160

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rahn KA, Shugart RM, Wylie MW, Reddy KK, Morgan JA (2010) The effect of lordosis, disc height change, subsidence, and transitional segment on stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion using a non-tapered threaded device. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 39(12):E124–E129

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jiang SD, Chen JW, Jiang LS (2012) Which procedure is better for lumbar interbody fusion: anterior lumbar interbody fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132(9):1259–1266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Beaubien BP, Mehbod AA, Kallemeier PM, Lew WD, Buttermann GR, Transfeldt EE (2004) Posterior augmentation of an anterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive fixation versus pedicle screws in vitro. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:E406–E412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Burton D, McIff T, Fox T, Lark R, Asher MA, Glattes RC (2005) Biomechanical analysis of posterior fixation techniques in a 360 degrees arthrodesis model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2765–2771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ferrara LA, Secor JL, Jin BH, Wakefield A, Inceoglu S, Benzel EC (2003) A biomechanical comparison of facet screw fixation and pedicle screw fixation: effects of short-term and long-term repetitive cycling. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:1226–1234

    Google Scholar 

  7. Eskander M, Brooks D, Ordway N, Dale E, Connolly P (2007) Analysis of pedicle and translaminar facet fixation in a multisegment interbody fusion model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:E230–E235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Shim CS, Lee SH, Jung B, Sivasabaapathi P, Park SH, Shin SW (2005) Fluoroscopically assisted percutaneous translaminar facet screw fixation following anterior lumbar interbody fusion: technical report. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:838–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Thalgott JS, Klezl Z, Timlin M, Giuffre JM (2002) Anterior lumbar interbody fusion with processed sea coral (coralline hydroxyapatite) as part of a circumferential fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:E518–E525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Best NM, Sasso RC (2006) Efficacy of translaminar facet screw fixation in circumferential interbody fusions as compared to pedicle screw fixation. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:98–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Carandang G, Simonds J, Voronov LI, Ghanayem AJ (2003) Effect of compressive follower preload on the flexion-extension response of the human lumbar spine. J Orthop Res 21:540–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim SM, Lim TJ, Paterno J, Kim DH (2004) A biomechanical comparison of supplementary posterior translaminar facet and transfacetopedicular screw fixation after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 1:101–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kandziora F, Schleicher P, Scholz M, Pflugmacher R, Eindorf T, Haas NP (2005) Biomechanical testing of the lumbar facet interference screw. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:E34–E39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Humke T, Grob D, Dvorak J, Messikommer A (1998) Translaminar screw fixation of the lumbar and lumbosacral spine. a 5-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:1180–1184

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rao RD, David KS, Wang M (2005) Biomechanical changes at adjacent segments following anterior lumbar interbody fusion using tapered cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2772–2776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yan JZ, Qiu GX, Wu ZH, Wang XS, Xing ZJ (2011) Finite element analysis in adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar fusion. Int J Med Robot 7(1):96–100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tang S, Rebholz BJ (2011) Does anterior lumbar interbody fusion promote adjacent degeneration in degenerative disc disease? a finite element study. J Orthop Sci 16(2):221–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chow DH, Luk KD, Evans JH, Leong JC (1996) Effects of short anterior lumbar interbody fusion on biomechanics of neighboring unfused segments. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:549–555

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yong Shen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hou, Y., Shen, Y., Liu, Z. et al. Which posterior instrumentation is better for two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion: translaminar facet screw or pedicle screw?. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133, 37–42 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1636-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1636-y

Keywords

Navigation