Biomechanical Effects of Titanium Alloy Based Single versus Dual Cage Fusion Devices

Abstract:

Degenerative disc disease is an increasing problematic complication following lumbar fusion surgeries. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is a well-established surgical method for spine stability following intervertebral disc removal. The position and number of titanium cages in PLIF are remain contingent on individual surgeon experience. Thus, a systemic investigation of the efficacy of titanium single mega cage versus two cages in treating degenerative lumbar spinal diseases is imperative. A biomechanical study was aimed to compare the stability achieved in PLIF through interbody reconstruction using a single mega cage (32 mm) Vs. a dual cage (22 mm). Normal intact finite element model of L3–L4 was developed based on computed tomography images from a healthy 27-year-old male volunteer. The study tested the intact model (Model A) and its surgically operated counterparts using four PLIF implantation methods: single transverse cage (Model B), single transverse cage with bone graft (Model C), dual transverse cage (Model D), and dual transverse cage with bone graft (Model E). Combined loads simulating physiological motions—flexion, extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending —were applied across all loading directions. The assessment includes all model range of motion (ROM), micromotion between the cage and endplate, and stress on the cage and internal fixation system (screw and rod). The ROM between Models B, C, D and E were consistently reduced by over 71% compared to intact Model A under all motion scenarios. Model D exhibited the highest peak stress of 115 MPa on the cage during flexion, surpassing Model C and E (Flexion) by fourfold. Model E demonstrated the lowest cage stress (20 MPa) during extension, outperforming the other models. Notably, Model E exhibited minimal endplate stress (2 MPa), cage stress (21 MPa), micromotion (13 µm) during extension, and screw-rod stress (56 MPa) during flexion, making it superior to other implantation methods. In the context of PLIF, Model E showed enhanced biomechanical stability, reducing ROM, stress on the endplates, cage, screw-rod system and micromotion. Alternatively, Model C may be a viable alternative in standard PLIF, especially in cases with limited intervertebral space, providing efficient clinical outcomes with shorter operative times and reduced costs and ease of implantation. Also, this computational study provides valuable understandings into optimizing cage implantation strategies for improved outcomes during PLIF.

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volume 985)
• Pages: 83-94
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/p-7LxfqQ
• Online since: August 2024
• Authors: Nitesh Kumar Singh, Rati Verma, Pradeep Kumar, Nishant Kumar Singh*
• Keywords: Biomimetic, Cage, Graft, PLIF, Titanium

References

[1] R.B. Cloward, The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion: I. Indications, operative technique, after care, Journal of neurosurgery. 10(2) (1953) 154-168.

DOI: 10.3171/jns.1953.10.2.0154

[2] R.B. Cloward, 4 Lesions of the Intervertebral Disks and Their Treatment by Interbody Fusion Methods The Painful Disk, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (1976-2007). 27 (1963) 51-77.

DOI: 10.1097/00003086-196300270-00006

[3] B. Meng, J. Bunch, D. Burton, J. Wang, Lumbar interbody fusion: recent advances in surgical techniques and bone healing strategies, European Spine Journal. 30 (2021) 22-33.

DOI: 10.1007/s00586-020-06596-0

[4] W.F. Lestini, J.S. Fulghum, L.A. Whitehurst, Lumbar spinal fusion: advantages of posterior lumbar interbody fusion, Surgical technology international. 3 (1994) 577-590.

[5] C.D. Cole, T.D. McCall, M.H. Schmidt, A.T. Dailey, Comparison of low back fusion techniques: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approaches, Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine. 2 (2009) 118-126.

DOI: 10.1007/s12178-009-9053-8

[6] G.R. Fogel, J.S. Toohey, A. Neidre, J.W. Brantigan, Is one cage enough in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of unilateral single cage interbody fusion to bilateral cages, Clinical Spine Surgery. 20(1) (2007) 60-65.

DOI: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000211251.59953.a4

[7] Verma, R., Kumar, J., Singh, N. K., Rai, S. K., Saxena, K. K., & Xu, J. (2022). Design and analysis of biomedical scaffolds using TPMS-based porous structures inspired from additive manufacturing. Coatings, 12(6), 839.

DOI: 10.3390/coatings12060839

[8] H.R. Newman, J.F. DeLucca, J.M. Peloquin, E.J. Vresilovic, D.M. Elliott, Multiaxial validation of a finite element model of the intervertebral disc with multigenerational fibers to establish residual strain. JOR spine. 4(2), (2021) e1145.

DOI: 10.1002/jsp2.1145

[9] R. Remus, A. Lipphaus, M. Neumann, B. Bender, Calibration and validation of a novel hybrid model of the lumbosacral spine in ArtiSynth–The passive structures, PLoS One. 16(4) (2021) e0250456.

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250456

[10] A.A. WHITE III, Clinical biomechanics of cervical spine implants, Spine. 14(10) (1989) 1040-1045.

DOI: 10.1097/00007632-198910000-00002

[11] V.K. Goel, B.T. Monroe, L.G. Gilbertson, P. Brinckmann, Interlaminar shear stresses and laminae separation in a disc: finite element analysis of the L3-L4 motion segment subjected to axial compressive loads. Spine. 20(6) (1995) 689-698.

DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199503150-00010

[12] Z. Xiao, L. Wang, H. Gong, J. Gao, X. Zhang, Establishment and verification of a non-linear finite element model for human L4–L5 lumbar segment. In 2010 3rd International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Informatics, IEEE. 3 (2010) 1171-1175.

DOI: 10.1109/bmei.2010.5639592

[13] P.R. Landham, A.S. Don, P.A. Robertson, Do position and size matter? An analysis of cage and placement variables for optimum lordosis in PLIF reconstruction, European Spine Journal. 26 (2017) 2843-2850.

DOI: 10.1007/s00586-017-5170-z

[14] T.V. Le, A.A. Baaj, E. Dakwar, C.J. Burkett, G. Murray, D.A. Smith, J.S. Uribe, Subsidence of polyetheretherketone intervertebral cages in minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion, Spine. 37(14) (2012) 1268-1273.

DOI: 10.1097/brs.0b013e3182458b2f

[15] Y.H. Lee, C.J. Chung, C.W. Wang, Y.T. Peng, C.H. Chang, C.H. Chen, Y.N. Chen, C.T. Li, Computational comparison of three posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques by using porous titanium interbody cages with 50% porosity, Computers in biology and medicine. 71 (2016) 35-45.

DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2016.01.024

[16] Q.Y. Li, H.J. Kim, J. Son, K.T. Kang, B.S. Chang, C.K. Lee, H.S. Seok, J.S. Yeom, Biomechanical analysis of lumbar decompression surgery in relation to degenerative changes in the lumbar spine–Validated finite element analysis, Computers in biology and medicine. 89 (2017) 512-519.

DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2017.09.003

[17] P.M. Lin, Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): past, present, and future, Clinical Neurosurgery. 47 (2000) 470-482.

[18] Y.M. Lu, W.C. Hutton, V.M. Gharpuray, Do bending, twisting, and diurnal fluid changes in the disc affect the propensity to prolapse? A viscoelastic finite element model, Spine. 21(22) (1996) 2570-2579.

DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199611150-00006

[19] R.J. Bianco, P.J. Arnoux, E. Wagnac, J.M. Mac-Thiong, C.E. Aubin, minimizing pedicle screw pullout risks: a detailed biomechanical analysis of screw design and placement, Clin Spine Surg. 30(3) (2017) E226–E232.

DOI: 10.1097/bsd.0000000000000151

[20] Z. Zhang, G.R. Fogel, Z. Liao, Y. Sun, W. Liu, Biomechanical analysis of lateral lumbar interbody fusion constructs with various fixation options: based on a validated finite element model, World neurosurgery. 114 (2018) e1120-e1129.

DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.03.158

[21] Y.F. Zhang, H.L. Yang, J.W. Wang, T.S. Tang, Two‐year follow‐up results after treatment of lumbar instability with titanium‐coated fusion system, Orthopaedic surgery. 1(2) (2009) 94-100.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1757-7861.2009.00026.x

[22] C.C. Lo, K.J. Tsai, Z.C. Zhong, S.H. Chen, C. Hung, Biomechanical differences of Coflex-F and pedicle screw fixation combined with TLIF or ALIF–a finite element study, Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering. 14(11) (2011) 947-956.

DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2010.501762

[23] D.V. Ambati, E.K. Wright Jr, R.A. Lehman Jr, D.G. Kang, S.C. Wagner, A.E. Dmitriev, Bilateral pedicle screw fixation provides superior biomechanical stability in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element study, The spine journal. 15(8) (2015) 1812-1822.

DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.06.015

[24] M. Dreischarf, T. Zander, A. Shirazi-Adl, C.M. Puttlitz, C.J. Adam, C.S. Chen, V.K. Goel, A. Kiapour, Y.H. Kim, K.M. Labus, J.P. Little, W.M. Park, Y.H. Wang, H.J. Wilke, A. Rohlmann, H. Schmidt, Comparison of eight published static finite element models of the intact lumbar spine: predictive power of models improves when combined together, Journal of biomechanics. 47(8) (2014) 1757-1766.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.04.002

[25] M.F. Chiang, Z.C. Zhong, C.S. Chen, C.K. Cheng, S.L. Shih, Biomechanical comparison of instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion with one or two cages by finite element analysis, Spine. 31(19) (2006) E682-E689.

DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000232714.72699.8e

[26] J.J. Carmouche, R.W. Molinari, Epidural abscess and discitis complicating instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a case report, Spine. 29(23) (2004) E542-E546.

DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000146802.38753.38

[27] E.M. Pinto, A. Teixeira, R. Frada, P. Atilano, A. Miranda, Surgical risk factors associated with the development of adjacent segment pathology in the lumbar spine, EFORT open reviews. 6(10) (2021) 966-972.

DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210050

[28] Y. Hou, H. Shi, H. Shi, T. Zhao, J. Shi, G. Shi, A meta-analysis of risk factors for cage migration after lumbar fusion surgery, World Neurosurgery: X. (2023). 100152.

DOI: 10.1016/j.wnsx.2023.100152

[29] A. Nassr, J.Y. Lee, R.S. Bashir, J.A. Rihn, J.C. Eck, J.D. Kang, M.R. Lim, Does incorrect level needle localization during anterior cervical discectomy and fusion lead to accelerated disc degeneration?, Spine. 34(2) (2009) 189-192.

DOI: 10.1097/brs.0b013e3181913872

[30] M. D'Souza, N.A. Macdonald, J.L. Gendreau, P.J. Duddleston, A.Y. Feng, A.L. Ho, Graft materials and biologics for spinal interbody fusion, Biomedicines. 7(4) (2019) 75.

DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines7040075

[31] C.M. Shih, C.H. Lee, K.H. Chen, C.C. Pan, Y.C. Yen, C.H. Wang, K.C. Su, Optimizing Spinal Fusion Cage Design to Improve Bone Substitute Filling on Varying Disc Heights: A 3D Printing Study, Bioengineering. 10(11) (2023) 1250.

DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering10111250

[32] M.J. Voor, S. Mehta, M. Wang, Y.M. Zhang, J. Mahan, J.R. Johnson, Biomechanical evaluation of posterior and anterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques, Clinical Spine Surgery. 11(4) (1998) 328-334.

DOI: 10.1097/00002517-199808000-00011

[33] H.J. Wilke, P. Neef, M. Caimi, T. Hoogland, L.E. Claes, New in vivo measurements of pressures in the intervertebral disc in daily life, Spine. 24(8) (1999) 755-762.

DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199904150-00005

[34] B.W. Cunningham, N. Hu, C.M. Zorn, P.C. McAfee, Biomechanical evaluation of threaded cages for lumbar interbody fusion, Spine. 27(4) (2002) 363-367.

[35] H.J. Wilke, K. Wenger, L. Claes, Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants, European spine journal. 7 (1998) 148-154.

DOI: 10.1007/s005860050045

[36] G. Ghiselli, N. Wharton, J.A. Hipp, D.A. Wong, S. Jatana, Prospective Analysis of Imaging Prediction of Pseudarthrosis After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Computed Tomography: Versus: Flexion-Extension Motion Analysis With Intraoperative Correlation, Spine, 36(6) (2011) 463-468.

DOI: 10.1097/brs.0b013e3181d7a81a

[37] A. Kettler, H.J. Wilke, R. Dietl, M. Krammer, C. Lumenta, L. Claes, Stabilizing effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages before and after cyclic loading, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 92(1) (2000) 87-92.

DOI: 10.3171/spi.2000.92.1.0087

[38] A.A. WHITE III, M.M. PANJABI, The role of stabilization in the treatment of cervical spine injuries, Spine. 9(5) (1984) 512-522.

DOI: 10.1097/00007632-198407000-00021

[39] C.S. Kuo, H.T. Hu, L.C. Wu, C.L. Sun, Biomechanical analysis of different types of lumbar reconstruction devices, Clinical Biomechanics. 24(6) (2009) 467-472.

[40] J. Wu, Q. Feng, D. Yang, H. Xu, W. Wen, H. Xu, J. Miao, Biomechanical evaluation of different sizes of 3D printed cage in lumbar interbody fusion-a finite element analysis, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 24(1) (2023) 1-11.

DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06201-7

[41] R.M. Pilliar, H.U. Cameron, R.P. Welsh, A.G. Binnington, Radiographic and morphologic studies of load-bearing porous-surfaced structured implants, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (1976-2007). (1981) 156, 249-257.

DOI: 10.1097/00003086-198105000-00037

[42] M. Lin, S.Z. Shapiro, J. Doulgeris, E.D. Engeberg, C.T. Tsai, F.D. Vrionis, Cage-screw and anterior plating combination reduces the risk of micromotion and subsidence in multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion—A finite element study, The Spine Journal. 21(5) (2021) 874-882.

DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.01.015

[43] E.H. Ledet, G.P. Sanders, D.J. DiRisio, J.C. Glennon, Load-sharing through elastic micro-motion accelerates bone formation and interbody fusion, The Spine Journal. 18(7) (2018) 1222-1230.

DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.02.004

[44] D.W. Overaker, N.A. Langrana, A.M. Cuitin˜ o, (1999). Finite element analysis of vertebral body mechanics with a nonlinear microstructural model for the trabecular core.

DOI: 10.1115/1.2835085

[45] A. Polikeit, S.J. Ferguson, L.P. Nolte, T.E. Orr, Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis, European spine journal. 12 (2003) 413-420.

DOI: 10.1007/s00586-002-0505-8