Introduction
Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) operations have been extensively used to deal with lumbar degenerative illnesses (LDD).1,2 By transpedicular three-column fixation, bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) might present the most effective fixation stability in contrast with different further fixation gadgets.3,4 Surgical section problems (eg, cage subsidence, non-union, and BPS failures) will negatively have an effect on LIF sufferers’ prognosis.2,5 Biomechanical deteriorations initially set off these problems.6–8 Research reported that screw insertional positions and trajectories would have an effect on the native biomechanical atmosphere.9–11
Lately, the indirect lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has been quickly promoted.1,2 In contrast with posterior method LIF operations, the big footprint of OLIF cage is much less more likely to lead to cage subsidence, however contemplating the oblique nerve constructions’ decompression is completely depend on the distraction of disc area, the unfavourable impact on affected person’s prognosis is pronounced in OLIF than different posterior method LIF sufferers.1,5,7,12 Percutaneous BPS fixation is extensively utilized in OLIF operations. On this course of, the insertional screw positions are extremely adjustable beneath C-arm radiography steering. Insertional positions’ adjustments will have an effect on the fixation size of BPS, leading to adjustments in surgical section stiffness and native stress distribution which will affect the chance of problems on the surgical section.3,11,13 Thus, mechanical results of insertional screw place’s change on the surgical section must be elucidated to optimize this surgical technique and scale back complication danger. On this research, utilizing a extremely biomimetic lumbo-sacral mannequin, BPS fixation with totally different insertional screw positions has been simulated, and mechanical indicators associated to problems within the surgical section have been computed and recorded. Revealed literature has not adequately clarified this situation to the most effective of our information.
Strategies
Mannequin Building
Our beforehand revealed research have constructed and validated extremely biomimetic in-vitro knowledge based mostly finite factor (FE) mannequin (L3-S1). Bone constructions of this mannequin embody cortical, cancellous, and bony endplates (BEP).14,15 The cortical thickness was set as 0.8 mm, the thickness, concave angle, and depth of superior and inferior BEPs had been outlined individually in response to measured values from giant pattern anatomic research. Nonbony elements embody the intervertebral disc (IVD) and aspect cartilages. IVD consists of the nucleus core, the encompassing annulus, and cartilage endplates (CEP).14,15 BEPs’ outlines cowl the complete IVD, and that of CEP was set on the cranial and caudal sides of the nucleus and interior a part of the annulus. Based mostly on the MRI knowledge measurement, the nucleus’s cross-sectional space accounted for 38% of the IVD.14,15
The L4-L5 section was chosen to simulate the anterior psoas method indirect lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) fastened by BPS with totally different insertional screw positions. Within the surgical simulation processes, lateral elements of the annulus, the entire nucleus, and CEPs had been eliminated, and a polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) OLIF cage (18 mm width and 50 mm size) stuffed with grafted bone was inserted into the interbody area.16,17 Cage and BEP had been assumed to be fully matched. The lordotic angle and disc peak of postoperative fashions had been an identical to the preoperative mannequin.13,17,18
In the course of the simulation of BPS fixation, 4 an identical titanium alloy pedicle screws (diameter: 6mm, size: 45 mm) had been inserted into L4-L5 vertebral our bodies. The axes of screws within the transverse airplane had been parallel to the pedicle axis, which within the sagittal airplane was parallel to the BEP within the cranial facet.19,20 Screw threads had been preserved, and the screw compaction impact was simulated by adjusting the fabric property of cancellous across the thread.13,20,21 The connection between the screw tulip and the nut was simplified to extend the computational effectivity. By adjusting insertional positions in numerous vertebral our bodies, 5 fashions with totally different fixation lengths of BPS had been simulated (Figure 1).
Boundary and Loading Circumstances
Hybrid meshes with totally different sizes had been set in numerous elements. Mesh refinement was set in constructions with low thickness and huge deformation (eg, BEP, aspect cartilage, and posterior elements of the annulus).14,15 Within the definition of fabric properties, cortical and cancellous bone had been outlined by anisotropic regulation,22,23 different elements of those fashions had been outlined by isotropic regulation. The annulus was assumed to be hypoelastic materials, and the nucleus was set as a semi-fluid incompressible materials.24,25 Ligaments and aspect capsules had been outlined as cable parts. The frictional coefficient between aspect cartilages, cage and BEP, and screw-cancellous interfaces had been set as 0, 0.8, and 0.2, respectively.26,27
Inferior surfaces of fashions had been fastened completely, all moments in numerous instructions had been utilized on the superior endplate of fashions.14,15 Mechanical indicators had been computed beneath 4 totally different loading circumstances, together with 8 Nm flexion, 6Nm extension, 6Nm bending, and 4Nm rotation.18,28 On this course of, fashions are set to be symmetrical alongside the sagittal airplane to extend their computational effectivity by permitting the unilateral calculation of the bending and axial rotation loading circumstances.14,15
Mannequin Calibration and Validation
ROMs within the L4-L5 section had been seen because the reference of mannequin calibration. The stiffness of ligaments beneath totally different loading circumstances was calibrated to scale back the distinction between the computed and in-vitro measured values.29,30 We carried out a mesh convergence take a look at on the calibrated intact mannequin by evaluating the change of intradiscal stress (IDP) with totally different mesh sizes. The mannequin was thought of converged if the change of computed IDP was lower than 3%. Then, to make sure computational credibility, multi-indicator mannequin validation has been achieved.31,32 On this course of, the computed ROM and DC had been in contrast with measured values from in-vitro research reported by Renner et al, IDP was in contrast with values measured by Schilling et al, and which of FCF had been additionally in contrast with Wilson et al’s research.33–35
Outcomes
Multi-Indicator Mannequin Validation
Computational outcomes of multi-indicator mannequin validation present that the intact mannequin with calibrated ligamentum stiffness might make good representations of the particular mechanical atmosphere. These mechanical indicators computed by the calibrated intact mannequin had been inside ±1 normal deviation of the common values measured by in-vitro research (Figure 2).
Determine 2 Multi-indicator mannequin validation. |
Mechanical Results of Insertional Screw Place’s Modifications
Mechanical indicators had been computed to guage the chance of problems within the surgical section. We measured the surgical section vary of motions (ROM) to research the fixation stability and the chance of non-union. Optimistic correlations between PFS’s fixation size and stiffness had been recorded (Figure 3). Shifting BPS to the caudal facet may improve surgical section stiffness beneath the identical fixation size. The grafted bone’s pressure vitality density (SED) was additionally computed to establish the non-union danger, and the utmost von-Mises stress on BPS was computed to research the chance of BPS failure (Figure 3). With the change of fastened size and insertional screw positions, no obvious variation tendency will be noticed for SED. In contrast, the utmost stress of BPS elevated whether or not the screw was shifted upward or downward from the center of the pedicle.
Determine 3 ROM within the surgical section, SED of the grafted bone, and the utmost von-Mises stress on BPS. Abbreviations: F, flexion; E, extension; B, bending; R, axial rotation. |
Moreover, most stress on the BEP and subendplate cancellous bone (cancellous bone inside 5mm of the BEP, SCB) was additionally recorded to guage the chance of cage subsidence.36,37 The evident variation tendency of this indicator will be noticed with the insertional screw place’s change. Particularly, when the screw place is near the surgical section (shifting down of screw on the cranial facet and shifting up of screw on the caudal facet), stress focus happens in these bony constructions (Figure 4). Probably the most important change will be noticed within the inferior SCB. When the insertional place of the caudal screw shifted up, the utmost stress of inferior BEP and SCB elevated dramatically beneath all loading circumstances. Extra importantly, the utmost stress is near and even increased than the common yield energy of cancellous bone (2.37 Mpa) beneath some loading circumstances (Figure 5).19,38
Determine 4 The utmost von-Mises stress on BEP. |
Determine 5 The utmost von-Mises stress on SCB. |
Dialogue
Biomechanical deteriorations initially set off surgical section problems.6–8 Relations between screw positions and biomechanical environments have been extensively reported.9–11 This research has numerically investigated the consequences of screw insertional place adjustments, and biomechanical indicators associated to surgical section problems (ie, cage subsidence, non-union, segmental instability, and fixation failure) have been computed and recorded. Modifying the surgical technique based mostly on these computational outcomes could also be an efficient technique to optimize sufferers’ prognoses.
Segmental instability and non-union might set off segmental instability and the recurrence of low again ache. The SED of the grafted bone was proved to be a reputable predictor of osteogenesis by mechanical and scientific research,39,40 fixation stability of the surgical section was additionally vital for the osteointegration course of,41,42 and the surgical section’s ROM a dependable indicator when evaluating fixation stability.43–45 On this research, the SED of grafted bone didn’t present a transparent variation tendency with the change of screw place. In contrast, the surgical section’s ROM elevated with the discount of fixation size. Subsequently, we will deduce that lowering fixation size by altering insertional screw positions might improve the chance of segmental instability and non-union.
Moreover, aberrant stress focus within the BPS might result in its failure, and in flip, negatively have an effect on the surgical section’s stability and impede interbody bone integration.20,46 The rise of most stress will be noticed when shifting up and down the BPS from the center of the pedicle. Variations within the size of screws that weren’t inserted into the vertebra might clarify this phenomenon, which can be associated to the size of screws that don’t insert into the vertebral physique. Particularly, mechanical research present that uniform stress distribution is achieved when the screw is absolutely inserted into the vertebral physique,20,47,48 regardless of which route the insertional screw place shifts from the center place of the pedicle, the size of screws that don’t insert into the vertebral physique will likely be elevated (Figure 6). This can be an preliminary set off of stress focus in BPS. Contemplating the utmost stress’s worth was far lower than the yield energy of medical titanium alloy (758 Mpa),20,49 we imagine that the change of insertional screw positions and BPS’s fixation size is not going to considerably have an effect on the chance of non-fusion and BPS failure.
Extra considerably, aberrant stress focus within the BEP and SCB will injury these bony constructions and improve the chance of cage subsidence; evident stress focus in bony constructions will be noticed when the screw place is near the surgical section, particularly for the inferior BEP and SCB.5,49 In response to the precept of stress focus, a construction with excessive stiffness will bear a higher load. Subsequently, BPS and its surrounding bony constructions will likely be subjected to increased stress than different constructions. Distances between the pedicle screw to BEP and SCB had been bigger within the cranial facet, and the tendency of stress focus of those bony constructions was comparatively slight. In contrast, when shifting up the insertional screw place of the caudal pedicle screw, the screw trajectory will likely be positioned within the SCB of the inferior vertebral physique. Thus, the obvious stress focus of SCB and BEP will be recorded. The danger of SCB’s micro-damage could also be elevated dramatically beneath this mechanical circumstance, particularly when the utmost worth is increased than its yield energy,19,38 and the injury to SCB will result in the lack of the subendplate mechanical assist.45,50 This pathological change could also be an much more vital explanation for cage subsidence in distinction to the injury to BEPs.36,37 In contrast, though stress focus may also be noticed in BEP, contemplating the utmost stress was nonetheless lower than the yield stress of BEP (110 Mpa),19,38 the chance of BPE fracture could also be elevated barely not (Figure 7).
Determine 7 Nephograms of stress distribution on BEP beneath flexion loading situation. |
The present research nonetheless faces some limitations. Firstly, we set ligaments as cable parts in present FE fashions. The mechanical impact of cables can solely be acted on artificially chosen positions somewhat than their unique surfaces. Moreover, fibrosis scar tissues across the excision of the annulus and its mechanical impact had been omitted on this research. Though the ensuing potential danger of mechanical indicator distortions must be thought of, we nonetheless imagine that the computational outcomes on this research are dependable for the next causes. Firstly, the mannequin development technique with these limitations was extensively accepted.18,28,51 In the meantime, no connect positions of cable parts are outlined on constructions whose mechanical indicators had been recorded on this research. Thus, even when there may be computational distortion, it may be excluded from the indicator’s computation. Extra considerably, the intact mannequin used on this research was validated and accepted within the research talked about above. These limitations must be optimized in our future in-silico research.
Based mostly on these computational outcomes, we imagine that the discount of fixation size by altering insertional positions of BPS was not beneficial for the insertional screw technique and should improve the chance of segmental instability, non-union, and cage subsidence. Conclusions based mostly on the biomechanical change must be revalidated in our additional scientific research.
Conclusions
Adjusting the insertional place of BPS near the surgical section in OLIF fashions will result in stress focus of bony constructions and surgical segmental instability. Subsequently, lowering BPS’s fixation size was not beneficial, which can improve the chance of segmental instability, non-union, and cage subsidence. Nevertheless, these conclusions must be validated in our future scientific research.
Abbreviations
BEP, bony endplate; BPS, bilateral pedicle screw; CEP, cartilage endplate; DC, disc compression; IDP, intradiscal stress; IVD, intervertebral disc; LDD, lumbar degenerative illnesses; LIF, lumbar interbody fusion; OLIF, indirect lumbar interbody fusion; ROM, vary of motions; SCB, subendplate cancellous bone; SED, pressure vitality density.
Information Sharing Assertion
All the info of the manuscript are offered within the paper.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge Mr. Xiaoyu Zhang for the steering of figures preparation.
Writer Contributions
All authors made a major contribution to the work reported, whether or not that’s within the conception, research design, execution, acquisition of knowledge, evaluation and interpretation, or in all these areas; took half in drafting, revising or critically reviewing the article; gave ultimate approval of the model to be revealed; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and conform to be accountable for all points of the work:
Conception and design: Yangliu, Jingchi Li, and Chen Xu;
Mannequin development and finite factor evaluation: Jingchi Li, Chen Xu and Zhongxin Fang;
Evaluation and interpretation of knowledge: Chenyi Huang, Jingchi Li, Chen Xu and Ping Cai;
Figures preparation: Chenyi Huang, Jingchi Li, Fei Liu and Zhangchao Wei;
Manuscript Preparation: Chen Xu, Chenyi Huang and Jingchi Li;
Manuscript modification: Yang Liu.
Funding
This analysis was supported by grants from the Nationwide Pure Science Basis of China (81972090, 82172470, and 82072471), Shanghai Science & Expertise Fee Rising-Star Program (20QA1409200) and Biopharmaceutical science and expertise supporting basis (21S31901400), Shanghai Changzheng Hospital Medical Service Innovation Venture (2020CZWJFW15) and Excessive-High quality Analysis Cultivating Venture (2020YCGPZ-207).
Disclosure
The authors declare that they don’t have any competing pursuits.
References
1. Li JX, Phan Ok, Mobbs R. Indirect lumbar interbody fusion: technical points, operative outcomes, and problems. World Neurosurg. 2017;98:113–123. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.10.074
2. Woods KR, Billys JB, Hynes RA. Technical description of indirect lateral interbody fusion at L1-L5 (OLIF25) and at L5-S1 (OLIF51) and analysis of complication and fusion charges. Backbone J. 2017;17:545–553. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2016.10.026
3. Hsieh YY, Chen CH, Tsuang FY, Wu LC, Lin SC, Chiang CJ. Removing of fixation assemble might mitigate adjoining section stress after lumbosacral fusion: a finite factor evaluation. Clin Biomech. 2017;43:115–120. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2017.02.011
4. Lee MJ, Lindsey JD, Bransford RJ. Pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilization within the lumbar backbone. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18:581–588. doi:10.5435/00124635-201010000-00001
5. Oh KW, Lee JH, Lee JH, Lee DY, Shim HJ. The correlation between cage subsidence, bone mineral density, and scientific leads to posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Backbone Surg. 2017;30:E683–e689. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000000315
6. Faizan A, Kiapour A, Kiapour AM, Goel VK. Biomechanical evaluation of assorted footprints of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion gadgets. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27:E118–127. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182a11478
7. Xi Z, Mummaneni PV, Wang M, et al. The affiliation between decrease Hounsfield items on computed tomography and cage subsidence after lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus. 2020;49:E8. doi:10.3171/2020.5.FOCUS20169
8. Zhang Z, Fogel GR, Liao Z, Solar Y, Liu W. Biomechanical evaluation of lumbar interbody fusion cages with varied lordotic angles: a finite factor research. Comput Strategies Biomech Biomed Engin. 2018;21:247–254. doi:10.1080/10255842.2018.1442443
9. Newcomb AG, Baek S, Kelly BP, Crawford NR. Impact of screw place on load switch in lumbar pedicle screws: a non-idealized finite factor evaluation. Comput Strategies Biomech Biomed Engin. 2017;20:182–192. doi:10.1080/10255842.2016.1209187
10. Amirouche F, Solitro GF, Magnan BP. Stability and backbone pedicle screws fixation Power-A comparative research of bone density and insertion angle. Backbone Deform. 2016;4:261–267. doi:10.1016/j.jspd.2015.12.008
11. La Barbera L, Costa F, Villa T. ISO 12189 normal for the preclinical analysis of posterior spinal stabilization gadgets–II: a parametric comparative research. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2016;230:134–144. doi:10.1177/0954411915621588
12. Abe Ok, Orita S, Mannoji C, et al. Perioperative problems in 155 sufferers who underwent indirect lateral interbody fusion surgical procedure: views and indications from a retrospective, multicenter survey. Backbone. 2017;42:55–62. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001650
13. Guo HZ, Tang YC, Guo DQ, et al. Stability analysis of indirect lumbar interbody fusion constructs with varied fixation choices: a finite factor evaluation based mostly on three-dimensional scanning fashions. World Neurosurg. 2020;138:e530–e538. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2020.02.180
14. Li J, Xu C, Zhang X, et al. TELD with restricted foraminoplasty has potential biomechanical benefits over TELD with giant annuloplasty: an in-silico research. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22:616. doi:10.1186/s12891-021-04504-1
15. Li J, Xu C, Zhang X, et al. Disc measurement and nucleus calibration in a smoothened lumbar mannequin will increase the accuracy and effectivity of in-silico research. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16:498. doi:10.1186/s13018-021-02655-4
16. Lu T, Lu Y. Comparability of biomechanical efficiency amongst posterolateral fusion and transforaminal, excessive, and indirect lumbar interbody fusion: a finite factor evaluation. World Neurosurg. 2019;129:e890–e899. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2019.06.074
17. Wang B, Hua W, Ke W, et al. Biomechanical analysis of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and indirect lumbar interbody fusion on the adjoining section: a finite factor evaluation. World Neurosurg. 2019;126:e819–e824. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2019.02.164
18. Kim HJ, Chun HJ, Kang KT, et al. The biomechanical impact of pedicle screws’ insertion angle and place on the superior adjoining section in 1 section lumbar fusion. Backbone. 2012;37:1637–1644. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823f2115
19. Liu JM, Zhang Y, Zhou Y, et al. The impact of screw tunnels on the biomechanical stability of vertebral physique after pedicle screws removing: a finite factor evaluation. Int Orthop. 2017;41:1183–1187. doi:10.1007/s00264-017-3453-y
20. Chao CK, Hsu CC, Wang JL, Lin J. Growing bending energy and pullout energy in conical pedicle screws: biomechanical checks and finite factor analyses. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21:130–138. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e318073cc4b
21. Hsu CC, Chao CK, Wang JL, Hou SM, Tsai YT, Lin J. Improve of pullout energy of spinal pedicle screws with conical core: biomechanical checks and finite factor analyses. J Orthop Res. 2005;23:788–794. doi:10.1016/j.orthres.2004.11.002
22. Morgan EF, Bayraktar HH, Keaveny TM. Trabecular bone modulus-density relationships depend upon anatomic web site. J Biomech. 2003;36:897–904. doi:10.1016/S0021-9290(03)00071-X
23. Tsouknidas A, Sarigiannidis SO, Anagnostidis Ok, Michailidis N, Ahuja S. Evaluation of stress patterns on a spinal movement section in wholesome versus osteoporotic bony fashions with or with out disc degeneration: a finite factor evaluation. Backbone J. 2015;15:S17–s22. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2014.12.148
24. Wu HC, Yao RF. Mechanical conduct of the human annulus fibrosus. J Biomech. 1976;9:1–7. doi:10.1016/0021-9290(76)90132-9
25. Newell N, Little JP, Christou A, Adams MA, Adam CJ, Masouros SD. Biomechanics of the human intervertebral disc: a assessment of testing strategies and outcomes. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017;69:420–434. doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.01.037
26. Polikeit A, Ferguson SJ, Nolte LP, Orr TE. Elements influencing stresses within the lumbar backbone after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite factor evaluation. Eur Backbone J. 2003;12:413–420. doi:10.1007/s00586-002-0505-8
27. Zhong ZM, Deviren V, Tay B, Burch S, Berven SH. Adjoining section illness after instrumented fusion for grownup lumbar spondylolisthesis: incidence and danger elements. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2017;156:29–34. doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.02.020
28. Kim HJ, Kang KT, Son J, Lee CK, Chang BS, Yeom JS. The affect of aspect joint orientation and tropism on the stress on the adjoining section after lumbar fusion surgical procedure: a biomechanical evaluation. Backbone J. 2015;15:1841–1847. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2015.03.038
29. Schmidt H, Heuer F, Simon U, et al. Utility of a brand new calibration technique for a three-dimensional finite factor mannequin of a human lumbar annulus fibrosus. Clin Biomech. 2006;21:337–344. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.12.001
30. Schmidt H, Heuer F, Drumm J, Klezl Z, Claes L, Wilke HJ. Utility of a calibration technique offers extra real looking outcomes for a finite factor mannequin of a lumbar spinal section. Clin Biomech. 2007;22:377–384. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.11.008
31. Fan W, Guo LX, Zhang M. Biomechanical evaluation of lumbar interbody fusion supplemented with varied posterior stabilization methods. Eur Backbone J. 2021;30:2342–2350. doi:10.1007/s00586-021-06856-7
32. Ottardi C, Galbusera F, Luca A, et al. Finite factor evaluation of the lumbar destabilization following pedicle subtraction osteotomy. Med Eng Phys. 2016;38:506–509. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2016.02.002
33. Renner SM, Natarajan RN, Patwardhan AG, et al. Novel mannequin to research the impact of a giant compressive follower pre-load on vary of motions in a lumbar backbone. J Biomech. 2007;40:1326–1332. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.05.019
34. Schilling C, Krüger S, Grupp TM, Duda GN, Blömer W, Rohlmann A. The impact of design parameters of dynamic pedicle screw methods on kinematics and cargo bearing: an in vitro research. Eur Backbone J. 2011;20:297–307. doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1620-6
35. Wilson DC, Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Oxland TR, Wilson DR. Accuracy and repeatability of a brand new technique for measuring aspect masses within the lumbar backbone. J Biomech. 2006;39:348–353. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.12.011
36. Okano I, Jones C, Salzmann SN, et al. Endplate volumetric bone mineral density measured by quantitative computed tomography as a novel predictive measure of extreme cage subsidence after standalone lateral lumbar fusion. Eur Backbone J. 2020;29:1131–1140. doi:10.1007/s00586-020-06348-0
37. Brier-Jones JE, Palmer DK, Ĭnceoğlu S, Cheng WK. Vertebral physique fractures after transpsoas interbody fusion procedures. Backbone J. 2011;11:1068–1072. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2011.07.020
38. Zhao FD, Pollintine P, Gap BD, Adams MA, Dolan P. Vertebral fractures normally have an effect on the cranial endplate as a result of it’s thinner and supported by less-dense trabecular bone. Bone. 2009;44:372–379. doi:10.1016/j.bone.2008.10.048
39. Ganbat D, Kim YH, Kim Ok, Jin YJ, Park WM. Impact of mechanical loading on heterotopic ossification in cervical complete disc substitute: a three-dimensional finite factor evaluation. Biomech Mannequin Mechanobiol. 2016;15:1191–1199. doi:10.1007/s10237-015-0752-3
40. Von Forell GA, Nelson TG, Samartzis D, Bowden AE. Modifications in vertebral pressure vitality correlate with elevated presence of Schmorl’s nodes in multi-level lumbar disk degeneration. J Biomech Eng. 2014;136:061002. doi:10.1115/1.4027301
41. Ushirozako H, Hasegawa T, Ebata S, et al. Influence of ample contact between the autograft and endplate quickly after surgical procedure to forestall nonunion at 12 months following posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Backbone. 2020;33:1–10.
42. Oliver WM, Searle HKC, Ng ZH, et al. Elements related to humeral shaft nonunion. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2021;30:2283–2295. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2021.01.029
43. Fogel GR, Parikh RD, Ryu SI, Turner AW. Biomechanics of lateral lumbar interbody fusion constructs with lateral and posterior plate fixation: laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg Backbone. 2014;20:291–297. doi:10.3171/2013.11.SPINE13617
44. Basra S, Bucklen B, Muzumdar A, Khalil S, Gudipally M. A novel lateral lumbar built-in plate-spacer interbody implant: in vitro biomechanical evaluation. Backbone J. 2015;15:322–328. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2014.09.020
45. Doulgeris JJ, Aghayev Ok, Gonzalez-Blohm SA, Lee WE
46. Mehta H, Santos E, Ledonio C, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of pedicle screw thread differential design in an osteoporotic cadaver mannequin. Clin Biomech. 2012;27:234–240. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.10.004
47. La Barbera L, Cianfoni A, Ferrari A, Distefano D, Bonaldi G, Villa T. Stent-screw assisted inside fixation of osteoporotic vertebrae: a comparative finite factor evaluation on SAIF method. Entrance Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:291. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2019.00291
48. La Barbera L, Villa T. ISO 12189 normal for the preclinical analysis of posterior spinal stabilization gadgets–I: meeting process and validation. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2016;230:122–133. doi:10.1177/0954411915621587
49. Labrom RD, Tan JS, Reilly CW, Tredwell SJ, Fisher CG, Oxland TR. The impact of interbody cage positioning on lumbosacral vertebral endplate failure in compression. Backbone. 2005;30:E556–561. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000181053.38677.c2
50. Reis MT, Reyes PM. Biomechanical analysis of lateral lumbar interbody fusion with secondary augmentation. J Neurosurg Backbone. 2016;25:720–726. doi:10.3171/2016.4.SPINE151386
51. Dreischarf M, Zander T, Shirazi-Adl A, et al. Comparability of eight revealed static finite factor fashions of the intact lumbar backbone: predictive energy of fashions improves when mixed collectively. J Biomech. 2014;47:1757–1766. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.04.002