Revision of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical study in nonosteoporotic bone

OBJECT: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a popular fusion technique for treating chronic low-back pain. In cases of interbody nonfusion, revision techniques for TLIF include anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) approaches. Biomechanical data of the revision techniques are not available. The purpose of this study was to compare the immediate construct stability, in terms of range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ), of a revision ALIF procedure for an unsuccessful TLIF. An in vitro biomechanical comparison of TLIF and its ALIF revision procedure was conducted on cadaveric nonosteoporotic human spine segments. METHODS: Twelve cadaveric lumbar motion segments with normal bone mineral density were loaded in unconstrained axial torsion, lateral bending, and flexion-extension under 0.05 Hz and +/- 6-nm sinusoidal waveform. The specimens underwent TLIF (with posterior pedicle fixation) and anterior ALIF (with intact posterior fixation). Multidirectional flexibility testing was conducted following each step. The ROM and NZ data were measured and calculated for each test. RESULTS: Globally, the TLIF and revision ALIF procedures significantly reduced ROM and NZ compared with that of the intact condition. The revision ALIF procedures achieved similar ROM as the TLIF procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Revision ALIF maintained biomechanical stability of TLIF in nonosteoporotic spines. Revision ALIF can be performed without sacrificing spinal stability in cases of intact posterior instrumentation

Position of interbody spacer in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: effect on 3-dimensional stability and sagittal lumbar contour

STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical study. OBJECTIVE: To test 2 different intervertebral positions of a semilunar cage and their effects on 3-dimensional stability and segmental lordosis in a model of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In his original TLIF description, Harms recommended decortication of endplates, followed by placement of mesh cages in the middle-posterior intervertebral third. Subsequent studies presented conflicting recommendations: anterior placement of the spacer-cage for better load-sharing versus placement on the stronger posterolateral endplate regions. METHODS: Six human lumbar spinal functional units were first tested intact. TLIF was performed using a semilunar poly-ether-ether-ketone cage randomly inserted in the anterior (TLIF-A) or posterior (TLIF-P) disc space. Pedicle screws and rods were added. Unconstrained pure moments in axial-torsion, lateral-bending (LB), and flexion-extension (FE) were applied under 0.05 Hz and +/-5 Nm sinusoidal waveform. Segmental motions were recorded. Range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ) were calculated. Pairwise comparisons were made using nonparametric Wilcoxon-matched pairs signed rank sum test with statistical significance set at P0.05). Delta-ROM between TLIF-A and TLIF-P was not significant (P>0.05). TLIF-A and TLIF-P significantly decreased NZ in LB (P0.05). Segmental lordosis of TLIF-A and TLIF-P on C-arm views showed angle differences within the range of measurement error of Cobb angles. CONCLUSIONS: Difference in ROM and NZ between anterior (TLIF-A) or posterior (TLIF-P) positions was not statistically significant. Similarly, both positions did not influence segmental lordosis

Biomechanical comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

STUDY DESIGN: An in vitro biomechanical comparison of 2 fusion techniques, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), on cadaveric human spines. OBJECTIVE: To compare the immediate construct stability, in terms of range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone, of ALIF, including 2 separate approaches, and TLIF procedures with posterior titanium rod fixation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Both ALIF and TLIF have been used to treat chronic low back pain and instability. In many cases, the choice between these 2 techniques is based only on personal preference. No biomechanical performance comparison between these 2 fusion techniques is available to assist surgical decision. METHODS: Twelve cadaveric lumbar motion segments were loaded sinusoidally at 0.05 Hz and 5 Nm in unconstrained axial rotation, lateral bending and flexion extension. Specimens were randomly divided into 2 groups with 6 in each group. One group was assigned for TLIF whereas the other group for ALIF. In the ALIF group, there were 3 steps. First, the lateral ALIF procedure with the anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL) intact was performed. Afterwards, the ALL was cut without removing the ALIF cage. Finally, another appropriately sized ALIF cage was inserted anteriorly. Biomechanical tests were conducted after each step. RESULTS: In the ALIF group, the lateral ALIF and subsequent anterior ALIF reduced segmental motion significantly (P=0.03) under all loading conditions. Removing the ALL increased ROM by 59% and 142% in axial rotation and flexion extension, respectively (P=0.03). The anterior ALIF approach was able to achieve similar biomechanical stability of the lateral approach in lateral bending and flexion extension (P>0.05) under all loading conditions. The TLIF procedure significantly reduced the range of motion compared with the intact state (P=0.03). However, no statistical difference was detected between the TLIF group and the ALIF group (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both ALIF and TLIF procedures combined with posterior instrumentation significantly improved construct stability of intact spinal motion segments. However, there was no statistical difference between these 2 fusion techniques. The 2 ALIF approaches (lateral and anterior) also had similar construct stability even though anterior longitudinal ligament severing significantly reduced stability

Use of iQPR-H₂O for bone regeneration and its potential in the improvement of osteoporosis

Abstract Background Current treatments for osteoporosis are associated with various side effects and do not prevent the age-related decrease in osteoblast number. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of iQPR-H2O on osteogenesis. Methods Mouse fibroblast NIH3T3 and pre-osteoblastic MC3T3-E1 cells were cultured in medium prepared with iQPR-H2O or unprocessed mineral water (control cells), and proliferation and differentiation were assessed by MTT and alkaline phosphatase assay, respectively. Mineral deposition by the cells was determined using Alizarin red S staining. A mouse model of osteoporosis, ovariectomized SAMP8 mice, was used to evaluate the effects of iQPR-H2O on osteogenesis in vivo. Mice were given either iQPR-H2O or unprocessed mineral water (control group) for four months after which bone mass density (BMD) measurements were made using a bone densitometer and hematoxylin and eosin staining of bone samples. Results NIH3T3 cells grown in medium prepared with iQPR-H2O exhibited significantly greater proliferation. NIH3T3 and MC3T3-E1 cells demonstrated a significant increase in alkaline phosphatase levels in the iQPR-H2O group. MC3T3-E1 cells showed mineralization at day 28. mRNA expression levels of both osteopontin and runt-related transcription factor 2 in MC3T3-E1 cells were higher in the iQPR-H2O group compared with the control group. After four months, significantly greater bone regeneration was evident in ovariectomized SAMP8 mice administered iQPR-H2O as compared with control group. Conclusions iQPR-H2O may reduce the symptoms of osteoporosis by improving osteogenesis.</p