Implications of Different Types of Decompression Spinal Stenosis Surgical Procedures on the Biomechanics of Lumbar Spine

Abstract

Purpose

In this paper, a 3D finite element model of L1–L5 region in spinal column was developed to investigate biomechanical behavior of spine under different types of decompression surgery, which will help spinal surgeons to have a patient-specific computational tool for optimizing surgical treatment of spinal canal pathologies.

Methods

In this study, a new theoretical approach was developed to evaluate and compare different spinal surgical procedures using finite element model of lumbar spine. This model was developed by using computed tomography scanning (CT scan) of a patient with spinal canal stenosis and the computer-aided design (CAD) software was used to virtually simulate different types of surgery. The results of simulations were verified and validated through experimental data from the literature and a good agreement was found between the results. Four different types of spinal surgical procedures including unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, laminectomy with complete facetectomy, and laminectomy with partial facetectomy were virtually simulated in model.

Results

Post-operative kinematics, various biomechanical relevant parameters of spine, such as intradiscal pressure, disc stresses, and stresses at adjacent segments were evaluated by simulating each surgical procedure and optimal procedure was specified. Results showed that laminectomy with complete facetectomy leads to big changes in spinal stability and larger intradiscal pressure and stress at the operated segment (up to 150% in comparison with intact spine).

Conclusion

Our results represented that laminotomy is an optimal technique to reduce potential risk of adjacent segment disease and spinal instability.

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

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

References

  1. 1.

    Chad, D. A. (2007). Lumbar spinal stenosis. Neurologic Clinics, 25(2), 407–418.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Genevay, S., & Atlas, S. J. (2010). Lumbar spinal stenosis. Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology, 24(2), 253–265.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Throckmorton, T. W., Hilibrand, A. S., Mencio, G. A., Hodge, A., & Spengler, D. M. (2003). The impact of adjacent level disc degeneration on health status outcomes following lumbar fusion. Spine, 28(22), 2546–2550.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Ekman, P., Möller, H., Shalabi, A., Yu, Y. X., & Hedlund, R. (2009). A prospective randomised study on the long-term effect of lumbar fusion on adjacent disc degeneration. European Spine Journal, 18(8), 1175–1186.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Tsai, R. Y., Yang, R., & Bray, R. D. (1998). Microscopic laminotomies for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Journal of Spinal Disorders, 11(5), 389–394.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Thomé, C., Zevgaridis, D., Leheta, O., Bäzner, H., Pöckler-Schöniger, C., Wöhrle, J., et al. (2005). Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: A randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 3(2), 129–141.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Fu, Y.-S., Zeng, B.-F., & Xu, J.-G. (2008). Long-term outcomes of two different decompressive techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine, 33(5), 514–518.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Lee, M. J., Bransford, R. J., Bellabarba, C., Chapman, J. R., Cohen, A. M., Harrington, R. M., et al. (2010). The effect of bilateral laminotomy versus laminectomy on the motion and stiffness of the human lumbar spine: A biomechanical comparison. Spine, 35(19), 1789–1793.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Cardoso, M. J., Dmitriev, A. E., Helgeson, M., Lehman, R. A., Kuklo, T. R., & Rosner, M. K. (2008). Does superior-segment facet violation or laminectomy destabilize the adjacent level in lumbar transpedicular fixation? An in vitro human cadaveric assessment. Spine, 33(26), 2868–2873.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Rao, R. D., Wang, M., Singhal, P., McGrady, L. M., & Rao, S. (2002). Intradiscal pressure and kinematic behavior of lumbar spine after bilateral laminotomy and laminectomy. The Spine Journal, 2(5), 320–326.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Zander, T., Rohlmann, A., Klöckner, C., & Bergmann, G. (2003). Influence of graded facetectomy and laminectomy on spinal biomechanics. European Spine Journal, 12(4), 427–434.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Natarajan, R., Andersson, G., Patwardhan, A., & Andriacchi, T. (1999). Study on effect of graded facetectomy on change in lumbar motion segment torsional flexibility using three dimensional continuum contact representation for facet joints. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 121(2), 215–221.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Parikh, R. (2010) Biomechanical comparison of various posterior dynamic stabilization systems for different grades of facetectomy and decompression surgery, master thesis, The University of Toledo.

  14. 14.

    Grauer, J. N., Biyani, A., Faizan, A., Kiapour, A., Sairyo, K., Ivanov, A., et al. (2006). Biomechanics of two-level Charite artificial disc placement in comparison to fusion plus single-level disc placement combination. The Spine Journal, 6(6), 659–666.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Musculoskeletal Research Laboratories UoU. (2015). FEBio user’s manual V 2.4. Salt Lake City: Musculoskeletal Research Laboratories UoU.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Rohlmann, A., Neller, S., Claes, L., Bergmann, G., & Wilke, H.-J. (2001). Influence of a follower load on intradiscal pressure and intersegmental rotation of the lumbar spine. Spine, 26(24), E557–E561.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Iatridis, J. C., MacLean, J. J., Roughley, P. J., & Alini, M. (2006). Effects of mechancial loading on intervertebral disc metabolism in vivo. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 88(2), 41–46.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding has been provided for this study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Haghpanahi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Veisari, S.F., Haghpanahi, M. Implications of Different Types of Decompression Spinal Stenosis Surgical Procedures on the Biomechanics of Lumbar Spine. J. Med. Biol. Eng. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40846-020-00580-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Finite element model
  • Lumbar decompression surgery
  • Spinal stenosis