|
|
|
|
LEADER |
04044nam a2200481Ia 4500 |
001 |
0.3389-fbioe.2022.842382 |
008 |
220421s2022 CNT 000 0 und d |
020 |
|
|
|a 22964185 (ISSN)
|
245 |
1 |
0 |
|a Biomechanical Evaluation of Intervertebral Fusion Process After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Finite Element Study
|
260 |
|
0 |
|b Frontiers Media S.A.
|c 2022
|
856 |
|
|
|z View Fulltext in Publisher
|u https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.842382
|
520 |
3 |
|
|a Introduction: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a widely accepted surgical procedure in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. A solid interbody fusion is of critical significance in achieving satisfactory outcomes after ACDF. However, the current radiographic techniques to determine the degree of fusion are inaccurate and radiative. Several animal experiments suggested that the mechanical load on the spinal instrumentation could reflect the fusion process and evaluated the stability of implant. This study aims to investigate the biomechanical changes during the fusion process and explore the feasibility of reflecting the fusion status after ACDF through the load changes borne by the interbody fusion cage. Methods: The computed tomography (CT) scans preoperatively, immediately after surgery, at 3 months, and 6 months follow-up of patients who underwent ACDF at C5/6 were used to construct the C2–C7 finite element (FE) models representing different courses of fusion stages. A 75-N follower load with 1.0-Nm moments was applied to the top of C2 vertebra in the models to simulate flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation with the C7 vertebra fixed. The Von Mises stress at the surfaces of instrumentation and the adjacent intervertebral disc and force at the facet joints were analyzed. Results: The facet contact force at C5/6 suggested a significantly stepwise reduction as the fusion proceeded while the intradiscal pressure and facet contact force of adjacent levels changed slightly. The stress on the surfaces of titanium plate and screws significantly decreased at 3 and 6 months follow-up. A markedly changed stress distribution in extension among three models was noted in different fusion stages. After solid fusion is achieved, the stress was more uniformly distributed interbody fusion in all loading conditions. Conclusions: Through a follow-up study of 6 months, the stress on the surfaces of cervical instrumentation remarkably decreased in all loading conditions. After solid intervertebral fusion formed, the stress distributions on the surfaces of interbody cage and screws were more uniform. The stress distribution in extension altered significantly in different fusion status. Future studies are needed to develop the interbody fusion device with wireless sensors to achieve longitudinal real-time monitoring of the stress distribution during the course of fusion. Copyright © 2022 Shen, Yang, Liu, Qiu, Li, Ma and Gan.
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Anterior cervical discectomy and fusions
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a biomechanics
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Biomechanics
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a cervical spine
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Cervical spine
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Computerized tomography
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Contact forces
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Facet contacts
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Finite element analyse
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a finite element analysis
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Finite element method
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Follow up
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Fusion process
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Interbody fusion
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a interbody fusion cage
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Interbody fusion cages
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Loads (forces)
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Screws
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Stress analysis
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Stress concentration
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Stresses distribution
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Surgery
|
700 |
1 |
0 |
|a Gan, F.-J.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
0 |
|a Li, M.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
0 |
|a Liu, H.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
0 |
|a Ma, L.-T.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
0 |
|a Qiu, Y.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
0 |
|a Shen, Y.-W.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
0 |
|a Yang, Y.
|e author
|
773 |
|
|
|t Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
|