Biornechanical evaluation of the ventral and lateral surface shear strain distributions in central compared with dorsolateral placement of cages for lumbar interbody fusion

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridSohn, Moon-Jun/0000-0002-1796-766X
dc.authorwosidQue, Zhiqiang/HZI-2017-2023
dc.authorwosidKILINÇER, Cumhur/C-7969-2014
dc.contributor.authorSohn, MJ
dc.contributor.authorKayanja, MM
dc.contributor.authorKilinçer, C
dc.contributor.authorFerrara, LA
dc.contributor.authorBenzel, EC
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-12T10:54:39Z
dc.date.available2024-06-12T10:54:39Z
dc.date.issued2006
dc.departmentTrakya Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractObject. The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the ventral and lateral surface strain distributions and stiffness for two types of interbody cage placement: 1) central placement for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF); and 2) dorsolateral placement for extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ELIF). Methods. Two functional spine units were obtained for testing in each of 13 cadaveric spines, yielding 26 segments (three of which were not used because of bone abnormalities). Bilateral strain gauges were mounted adjacent to the endplate on the lateral and ventral walls of each vertebral body in the 23 motion segments. Each segment was cyclically tested in compression, flexion, and extension in the following conditions: while intact, postdiscectomy, and instrumented with interbody fusion cages placed using both insertion techniques. No significant differences were observed between ALIF and ELIF in compressive stiffness, bending stiffness in flexion and extension (p >= 0.1), ventral and lateral strain distribution during the intact tests (p >= 0.24), and during the flexion tests after fusion (p >= 0.22). In compression, higher ventral and lower lateral strain was observed in the ALIF than in the ELIF group (ventral, p = 0.05; lateral, p = 0.04), and in extension, higher ventral (p = 0.01) and higher lateral strain (p = 0.002) was observed in the ELIF than in the ALIF group. Conclusions. Preservation of the ventral anulus and dorsolateral placement of the interbody cages during ELIF allow alternate load transfer pathways through the dorsolateral vertebral wall and ventral anulus that are not observed following ALIF. These may be associated with a lower incidence of subsidence and a higher rate of fusion due to a more concentrated application of bone healing-enhancing compression forces during the fusion and healing process.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3171/spi.2006.4.3.219
dc.identifier.endpage224en_US
dc.identifier.issn1547-5654
dc.identifier.issn1547-5646
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.pmid16572621en_US
dc.identifier.startpage219en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2006.4.3.219
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14551/19134
dc.identifier.volume4en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000236191500005en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherAmer Assoc Neurological Surgeonsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal Of Neurosurgery-Spineen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectBiomechanical Testingen_US
dc.subjectStrain Gaugeen_US
dc.subjectStiffnessen_US
dc.subjectLumbar Interbody Fusionen_US
dc.subjectInterbody Implant Positioningen_US
dc.subjectEnd-Plateen_US
dc.subjectBiomechanical Analysisen_US
dc.subjectCompressive Strengthen_US
dc.subjectSpine Mechanicsen_US
dc.subjectVertebral Bodyen_US
dc.subjectFacet Jointen_US
dc.subjectBoneen_US
dc.subjectConstructsen_US
dc.subjectInstrumentationen_US
dc.subjectStabilityen_US
dc.titleBiornechanical evaluation of the ventral and lateral surface shear strain distributions in central compared with dorsolateral placement of cages for lumbar interbody fusionen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu