305
Views
5
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Biomechanical evaluation of anterior and posterior lumbar surgical approaches on the adjacent segment: a finite element analysis

, , , , & ORCID Icon
Pages 1109-1116 | Received 06 Sep 2019, Accepted 26 Jun 2020, Published online: 07 Jul 2020
 

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to use models of spine to compare range of motion and intradiscal pressure of adjacent segments performing anterior and/or posterior lumbar surgical approaches and predict potential risk of adjacent segment degeneration. A previously validated finite element model of the intact L1-S1 segments was used. Three different anterior and one posterior surgical fixation approaches for tuberculosis were performed in L3-L5. Three different anterior surgical models were constructed according to the anterior approaches involving debridement, bone graft with or without titanium mesh, and internal fixation with different number of screws and rods. The posterior surgical approach involved transforaminal lumbar interbody debridement, bone graft, and internal fixation. Range of motion and intradiscal pressure of segments adjacent to the fusion were assessed, and biomechanical influences were compared. Intradiscal pressure and range of motion of the adjacent L2/3 and L5/S1 increased during different physiological movements after anterior and/or posterior surgical approaches as compared to baseline values. Comparison between the biomechanical values assessed after different anterior surgical approaches yielded no significant difference. After anterior and posterior surgical approaches were performed on the same model, there were no significant differences in intradiscal pressure and range of motion of the adjacent L2/3 and L5/S1. Anterior and/or posterior lumbar surgical approaches increased range of motion and intradiscal pressure in L2/3 and L5/S1, suggesting each lumbar surgical approach assessed has the potential risk of adjacent segment degeneration. However, there were no significant differences between the biomechanical measurements across the different surgical approaches evaluated.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This study was funded by the National Key R&D program of China (2018YFB1105700), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2019kfyXMBZ063), and the Graduates’ Innovation Fund of Huazhong University of Science and Technology (2019ygscxcy066).

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.