Finite Element Modeling for Biomechanical Comparisons of Multilevel Transforaminal, Posterior, and Lateral Lumbar Approaches to Interbody Fusion Augmented with Posterior Instrumentation

Abstract

ObjectiveVerifying the intervertebral stability of each intervertebral fusion procedure, including transforaminal, posterior, and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF, PLIF, and LLIF, respectively), and the ratio of stress on the rods and pedicle screws during initial fixation may help select a fixation procedure that reduces the risk of mechanical complications, including rod fracture and screw loosening. Thus, we aimed to assess whether these procedures could prevent mechanical complications. MethodsUsing the finite element method (FEM), we designed four surgical models constructed from L2-5 as follows: posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), TLIF, PLIF, and LLIF models. Bilateral rods and each pedicle screw stress were tracked and calculated as Von Mises stress (VMS) for comparison among the PLF and other three interbody fusion models during flexion, extension, and side-bending movements. ResultsThe lowest rod VMS was LLIF, followed by PLIF, TLIF, and PLF in flexion and side bending movements. Compared with PLF, intervertebral fixation significantly reduced stress on the rods. No remarkable differences were observed in extension movements in each surgical procedure. A tendency for higher pedicle screw VMS was noted at the proximal and distal ends of the fixation ranges, including L2 and L5 screws for each procedure in all motions. Intervertebral fixation significantly reduced stress on the L2 and L5 screws, particularly in LLIF. ConclusionsStress on the rods and pedicle screws in the LLIF model was the lowest compared with that induced by other intervertebral fusion procedures. Therefore, LLIF may reduce mechanical complications occurrence, including rod fracture and screw loosening.