Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Itaru Oda x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Hideki Sudo, Itaru Oda, Kuniyoshi Abumi, Manabu Ito, Yoshihisa Kotani and Akio Minami

Object

The objectives of this study were to compare the biomechanical effects of five lumbar reconstruction models on the adjacent segment and to analyze the effects of three factors: construct stiffness, sagittal alignment, and the number of fused segments.

Methods

Nondestructive flexion–extension tests were performed by applying pure moments to 10 calf spinal (L3–S1) specimens. One-segment (L5–6) or two-segment (L5–S1) posterior fusion methods were simulated: 1) one-segment posterolateral fusion (PLF); 2) one-segment PLF with interbody fusion cages (one-segment PLIF/PLF); 3) two-segment PLF; 4) two-segment PLIF/PLF; and 5) two-segment PLF in kyphosis (two-segment kyphotic PLF). The range of motion (ROM) of the reconstructed segments, intradiscal pressure (IDP), and lamina strain in the upper (L4–5) adjacent segment were analyzed.

The ROM was significantly decreased in the PLIF/PLF models compared with that in the PLF alone models after both the one- and two-segment fusions. If the number of fused segments was increased, the pressure and strains were also increased in specimens subjected to the PLIF/PLF procedure, more so than the PLF-alone procedure. In the one-segment PLIF/PLF model the authors observed a reduced IDP and lamina strain compared with those in the kyphotic two-segment PLF model despite the latter’s higher levels of initial stiffness.

Conclusions

If the number of fused levels can be reduced by using PLIF to correct local kyphosis, then this procedure may be valuable for reducing adjacent-segment degenerative changes.

Restricted access

Hideki Sudo, Itaru Oda, Kuniyoshi Abumi, Manabu Ito, Yoshihisa Kotani, Yoshihiro Hojo and Akio Minami

Object. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) was developed to overcome the limitations of posterolateral fusion in correcting spinal deformity and maintaining lumbar lordosis. In this study the authors compare the biomechanical effects of three different posterior reconstructions on the adjacent motion segment.

Methods. Ten calf spinal (L2—S1) specimens underwent nondestructive flexion—extension testing (± 6 Nm). The specimens were destabilized at the L5—S1 levels after intact testing. This was followed by pedicle screw fixation with and without interbody cages as follows: 1) with straight rods (“aligned” posterolateral fusion); 2) with kyphotically prebent rods (“kyphotic” posterolateral fusion); and 3) with interbody cages combined with straight rods (“aligned” PLIF/posterolateral fusion). The range of motion (ROM) of the operative segments, the intradiscal pressure (IDP), and longitudinal lamina strain in the superior adjacent segment (L4–5) were analyzed.

The ROM associated with aligned PLIF/posterolateral fusion-treated specimens was significantly less than both the aligned and kyphotic posterolateral fusion-treated procedures in both flexion and extension loading (p < 0.05). The aligned PLIF/posterolateral fusion was associated with greater IDP and the lamina strain compared with the aligned and kyphotic posterolateral fusion groups in flexion loading. Under extension loading, greater IDP and lamina strain were present in the kyphotic posterolateral fusion group than in the aligned posterolateral fusion group. The highest IDP and lamina strain were shown in the aligned PLIF/posterolateral fusion group.

Conclusions. Compared with kyphotic posterolateral fusion, PLIF may lead to even higher load at the superior adjacent level because of the increased stiffness of the fixed segments even if local kyphosis is corrected by PLIF.