Biomechanics of Lateral Interbody Spacers: Going Wider for Going Stiffer

This study investigates the biomechanical stability of a large interbody spacer inserted by a lateral approach and compares the biomechanical differences with the more conventional transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF), with and without supplemental pedicle screw (PS) fixation. Twenty-four L2-L3 fu...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Luiz Pimenta, Alexander W. L. Turner, Zachary A. Dooley, Rachit D. Parikh, Mark D. Peterson
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Hindawi Limited 2012-01-01
Series:The Scientific World Journal
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/2012/381814
id doaj-71bddd1907804628b5446c21587620e8
record_format Article
spelling doaj-71bddd1907804628b5446c21587620e82020-11-25T01:13:32ZengHindawi LimitedThe Scientific World Journal1537-744X2012-01-01201210.1100/2012/381814381814Biomechanics of Lateral Interbody Spacers: Going Wider for Going StifferLuiz Pimenta0Alexander W. L. Turner1Zachary A. Dooley2Rachit D. Parikh3Mark D. Peterson4Instituto de Patologia da Coluna, 04101-000 São Paulo, SP, BrazilNuVasive, Inc., San Diego, CA 92121, USANuVasive, Inc., San Diego, CA 92121, USANuVasive, Inc., San Diego, CA 92121, USASouthern Oregon Orthopedics, Medford, OR 97504, USAThis study investigates the biomechanical stability of a large interbody spacer inserted by a lateral approach and compares the biomechanical differences with the more conventional transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF), with and without supplemental pedicle screw (PS) fixation. Twenty-four L2-L3 functional spinal units (FSUs) were tested with three interbody cage options: (i) 18 mm XLIF cage, (ii) 26 mm XLIF cage, and (iii) 11 mm TLIF cage. Each spacer was tested without supplemental fixation, and with unilateral and bilateral PS fixation. Specimens were subjected to multidirectional nondestructive flexibility tests to 7.5 N·m. The range of motion (ROM) differences were first examined within the same group (per cage) using repeated-measures ANOVA, and then compared between cage groups. The 26 mm XLIF cage provided greater stability than the 18 mm XLIF cage with unilateral PS and 11 mm TLIF cage with bilateral PS. The 18 mm XLIF cage with unilateral PS provided greater stability than the 11 mm TLIF cage with bilateral PS. This study suggests that wider lateral spacers are biomechanically stable and offer the option to be used with less or even no supplemental fixation for interbody lumbar fusion.http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/2012/381814
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Luiz Pimenta
Alexander W. L. Turner
Zachary A. Dooley
Rachit D. Parikh
Mark D. Peterson
spellingShingle Luiz Pimenta
Alexander W. L. Turner
Zachary A. Dooley
Rachit D. Parikh
Mark D. Peterson
Biomechanics of Lateral Interbody Spacers: Going Wider for Going Stiffer
The Scientific World Journal
author_facet Luiz Pimenta
Alexander W. L. Turner
Zachary A. Dooley
Rachit D. Parikh
Mark D. Peterson
author_sort Luiz Pimenta
title Biomechanics of Lateral Interbody Spacers: Going Wider for Going Stiffer
title_short Biomechanics of Lateral Interbody Spacers: Going Wider for Going Stiffer
title_full Biomechanics of Lateral Interbody Spacers: Going Wider for Going Stiffer
title_fullStr Biomechanics of Lateral Interbody Spacers: Going Wider for Going Stiffer
title_full_unstemmed Biomechanics of Lateral Interbody Spacers: Going Wider for Going Stiffer
title_sort biomechanics of lateral interbody spacers: going wider for going stiffer
publisher Hindawi Limited
series The Scientific World Journal
issn 1537-744X
publishDate 2012-01-01
description This study investigates the biomechanical stability of a large interbody spacer inserted by a lateral approach and compares the biomechanical differences with the more conventional transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF), with and without supplemental pedicle screw (PS) fixation. Twenty-four L2-L3 functional spinal units (FSUs) were tested with three interbody cage options: (i) 18 mm XLIF cage, (ii) 26 mm XLIF cage, and (iii) 11 mm TLIF cage. Each spacer was tested without supplemental fixation, and with unilateral and bilateral PS fixation. Specimens were subjected to multidirectional nondestructive flexibility tests to 7.5 N·m. The range of motion (ROM) differences were first examined within the same group (per cage) using repeated-measures ANOVA, and then compared between cage groups. The 26 mm XLIF cage provided greater stability than the 18 mm XLIF cage with unilateral PS and 11 mm TLIF cage with bilateral PS. The 18 mm XLIF cage with unilateral PS provided greater stability than the 11 mm TLIF cage with bilateral PS. This study suggests that wider lateral spacers are biomechanically stable and offer the option to be used with less or even no supplemental fixation for interbody lumbar fusion.
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/2012/381814
work_keys_str_mv AT luizpimenta biomechanicsoflateralinterbodyspacersgoingwiderforgoingstiffer
AT alexanderwlturner biomechanicsoflateralinterbodyspacersgoingwiderforgoingstiffer
AT zacharyadooley biomechanicsoflateralinterbodyspacersgoingwiderforgoingstiffer
AT rachitdparikh biomechanicsoflateralinterbodyspacersgoingwiderforgoingstiffer
AT markdpeterson biomechanicsoflateralinterbodyspacersgoingwiderforgoingstiffer
_version_ 1725161659939422208