Biomechanical Effects of Different Prosthesis Types and Fixation Ranges in Multisegmental Total En Bloc Spondylectomy: A Finite Element Study

Abstract

Objective: Multi-segmental total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) gradually became more commonly used by clinicians. However, the choice of surgical strategy is unclear. This study aims to investigate the biomechanical performance of different prosthesis types and fixation ranges in multisegmental TES.

Methods: In this study, a validated finite element model of T12–L2 post-spondylectomy operations were carried out. The prostheses of these models used either 3D-printed artificial vertebrae or titanium mesh cages. The fixed range was two or three segment levels. Range of motion, stress distribution of the endplate and internal fixation system, intervertebral disc pressure, and facet joint surface force of four postoperative models and intact model in flexion and extension, as well as lateral bending and rotation were analyzed and compared.

Results: The type of prosthesis used in the anterior column reconstruction mainly affected the stress of the adjacent endplate and the prosthesis itself. The posterior fixation range had a greater influence on the overall range of motion (ROM), the ROM of the adjacent segment, the stress of the screw-rod system, and adjacent facet joint surface force. For the model of the same prosthesis, the increase of fixed length resulted in an obvious reduction of ROM. The maximal decrease was 70.23% during extension, and the minimal decrease was 30.19% during rotation.

Conclusion: In three-segment TES, the surgical strategy of using 3D-printed artificial prosthesis for anterior column support and pedicle screws for posterior fixation at both two upper and lower levels respectively can reduce the stress on internal fixation system, endplates, and adjacent intervertebral discs, resulting in a reduced risk of internal fixation failure, and ASD development.

Keywords

Finite Element / Fixation Range / Multisegmental Total En Bloc Spondylectomy / Prosthesis

References

[1] Sciubba DM, Goodwin CR, Yurter A, Ju D, Gokaslan ZL, Fisher C, et al. A systematic review of clinical outcomes and prognostic factors for patients undergoing surgery for spinal metastases secondary to breast cancer. Global Spine J. 2016; 6(5): 482–496.

[2] Orenday-Barraza JM, Cavagnaro MJ, Avila MJ, Strouse IM, Dowell A, Kisana H, et al. 10-year trends in the surgical Management of Patients with spinal metastases: a scoping review. World Neurosurg. 2022; 157: 170–186.

[3] Wright E, Ricciardi F, Arts M, Buchowski JM, Chung CK, Coppes M, et al. Metastatic spine tumor epidemiology: comparison of trends in surgery across two decades and three continents. World Neurosurg. 2018; 114: e809–e817.

[4] Jones M, Alshameeri Z, Uhiara O, Rehousek P, Grainger M, Hughes S, et al. En bloc resection of tumors of the lumbar spine: a systematic review of outcomes and complications. Int J Spine Surg. 2021; 15(6): 1223–1233.

[5] Park SJ, Lee CS, Chang BS, Kim YH, Kim H, Kim SI, et al. Rod fracture and related factors after total en bloc spondylectomy. Spine J. 2019; 19(10): 1613–1619.

[6] Tomita K, Kawahara N, Kobayashi T, Yoshida A, Murakami H, Akamaru T. Surgical strategy for spinal metastases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(3): 298–306.

[7] Disch AC, Luzzati A, Melcher I, Schaser KD, Feraboli F, Schmoelz W. Three-dimensional stiffness in a thoracolumbar en-bloc spondylectomy model: a biomechanical in vitro study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2007; 22(9): 957–964.

[8] Oda I, Cunningham BW, Abumi K, Kaneda K, McAfee PC. The stability of reconstruction methods after thoracolumbar total spondylectomy. An in vitro investigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999; 24(16): 1634–1638.

[9] Elder BD, Ishida W, Goodwin CR, Bydon A, Gokaslan ZL, Sciubba DM, et al. Bone graft options for spinal fusion following resection of spinal column tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Focus. 2017; 42(1): E16.

[10] Grob D, Daehn S, Mannion AF. Titanium mesh cages (TMC) in spine surgery. Eur Spine J. 2005; 14(3): 211–221.

[11] Yoshioka K, Murakami H, Demura S, Kato S, Kawahara N, Tomita K, et al. Clinical outcome of spinal reconstruction after total en bloc spondylectomy at 3 or more levels. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(24): E1511–E1516.

[12] Girolami M, Boriani S, Bandiera S, Barbanti-Brodano G, Ghermandi R, Terzi S, et al. Biomimetic 3D-printed custom-made prosthesis for anterior column reconstruction in the thoracolumbar spine: a tailored option following en bloc resection for spinal tumors: preliminary results on a case-series of 13 patients. Eur Spine J. 2018; 27(12): 3073–3083.

[13] Tang X, Yang Y, Zang J, Du Z, Yan T, Yang R, et al. Preliminary results of a 3D-printed modular vertebral prosthesis for anterior column reconstruction after multilevel thoracolumbar total en bloc spondylectomy. Orthop Surg. 2021; 13(3): 949–957.

[14] Sheha ED, Gandhi SD, Colman MW. 3D printing in spine surgery. Ann Transl Med. 2019; 7(Suppl 5): S164.

[15] Shah FA, Snis A, Matic A, Thomsen P, Palmquist A. 3D printed Ti6Al4V implant surface promotes bone maturation and retains a higher density of less aged osteocytes at the bone-implant interface. Acta Biomater. 2016; 30: 357–367.

[16] Sun Z, Yin M, Sun Y, Cheng M, Fang M, Huang W, et al. Customized multilevel 3D printing implant for reconstructing spine tumor: a retrospective case series study in a single center. Orthop Surg. 2022; 14: 2016–2022.

[17] Wang Y, Zhang X, Zhang Y, Zhang H, Sun H, Hao D, et al. One-stage posterior en-bloc spondylectomy following reconstruction with individualized 3D printed artificial vertebrae for multi-segment thoracolumbar metastases: case report and literature review. Am J Transl Res. 2021; 13(1): 115–123.

[18] Burch MB, Wiegers NW, Patil S, Nourbakhsh A. Incidence and risk factors of reoperation in patients with adjacent segment disease: a meta-analysis. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2020; 11(1): 9–16.

[19] Welch-Phillips A, Gibbons D, Ahern DP, Butler JS. What is finite element analysis? Clin Spine Surg. 2020; 33(8): 323–324.

[20] Brekelmans WA, Poort HW, Slooff TJ. A new method to analyse the mechanical behaviour of skeletal parts. Acta Orthop Scand. 1972; 43(5): 301–317.

[21] Naoum S, Vasiliadis AV, Koutserimpas C, Mylonakis N, Kotsapas M, Katakalos K. Finite element method for the evaluation of the human spine: a literature overview. J Funct Biomater. 2021; 12(3): 43.

[22] Wang X, Xu H, Han Y, Wu J, Song Y, Jiang Y, et al. Biomechanics of artificial pedicle fixation in a 3D-printed prosthesis after total en bloc spondylectomy: a finite element analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021; 16(1): 213.

[23] Han Y, Wang X, Wu J, Xu H, Zhang Z, Li K, et al. Biomechanical finite element analysis of vertebral column resection and posterior unilateral vertebral resection and reconstruction osteotomy. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021; 16(1): 88.

[24] Su Q, Li C, Li Y, Zhou Z, Zhang S, Guo S, et al. Analysis and improvement of the three-column spinal theory. BMC Musculoskel Dis. 2020; 21(1): 537.

[25] Li J, Zhang L, Li J, Zhang H, Zhao J, Zhang W. A hybrid uniplanar pedicle screw system with a new intermediate screw for minimally invasive spinal fixation: a finite element analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2020; 2020: 1–9.

[26] Liang Z, Cui J, Zhang J, He J, Tang J, Ren H, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of strategies for adjacent segment disease after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: is the extension of pedicle screws necessary? BMC Musculoskel Dis. 2020; 21(1): 117.

[27] Dong E, Shi L, Kang J, Li D, Liu B, Guo Z, et al. Biomechanical characterization of vertebral body replacement in situ: effects of different fixation strategies. Comput Meth Prog Bio. 2020; 197: 105741.

[28] Kim HJ, Kang KT, Chang BS, Lee CK, Kim JW, Yeom JS. Biomechanical analysis of fusion segment rigidity upon stress at both the fusion and adjacent segments: a comparison between unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation. Yonsei Med J. 2014; 55(5): 1386–1394.

[29] Wang W, Pei B, Pei Y, Shi Z, Kong C, Wu X, et al. Biomechanical effects of posterior pedicle fixation techniques on the adjacent segment for the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures: a biomechanical analysis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2019; 22(13): 1083–1092.

[30] Su Y, Wang X, Ren D, Liu Y, Liu S, Wang P. A finite element study on posterior short segment fixation combined with unilateral fixation using pedicle screws for stable thoracolumbar fracture. Medicine. 2018; 97(34): e12046.

[31] Alizadeh M, Kadir MRA, Fadhli MM, Fallahiarezoodar A, Azmi B, Murali MR, et al. The use of X-shaped cross-link in posterior spinal constructs improves stability in thoracolumbar burst fracture: a finite element analysis. J Orthop Res. 2013; 31(9): 1447–1454.

[32] Zhao G, Wu K, Liu D, Zhao J, Liang P, Hang S. A biomechanical study of proximal junctional kyphosis after posterior long segment fusion with vertebral body augmentation. Clin Biomech. 2021; 87: 105415.

[33] Liang Y, Cao Y, Gong Z, Jiang C, Jin L, Li Z, et al. A finite element analysis on comparing the stability of different posterior fixation methods for thoracic total en bloc spondylectomy. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020; 15(1): 314.

[34] Renner SM, Natarajan RN, Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Voronov LI, Guo BY, et al. Novel model to analyze the effect of a large compressive follower pre-load on range of motions in a lumbar spine. J Biomech. 2007; 40(6): 1326–1332.

[35] Lu H, Zhang Q, Ding F, Wu Q, Liu R. Establishment and validation of a T12-L2 3D finite element model for thoracolumbar segments. Am J Transl Res. 2022; 14(3): 1606–1615.

[36] Boustani HN, Rohlmann A, van der Put R, Burger A, Zander T. Which postures are most suitable in assessing spinal fusion using radiostereometric analysis? Clin Biomech. 2012; 27(2): 111–116.

[37] Wei X, Gengwu L, Chao C, Yifan L, Shang S, Ruixi H, et al. Correlations between the sagittal plane parameters of the spine and pelvis and lumbar disc degeneration. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018; 13(1): 137.

[38] Hsieh MK, Kao FC, Chen WJ, Chen IJ, Wang SF. The influence of spinopelvic parameters on adjacent-segment degeneration after short spinal fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018; 29(4): 407–413.

[39] Gittens RA, Olivares-Navarrete R, Schwartz Z, Boyan BD. Implant osseointegration and the role of microroughness and nanostructures: lessons for spine implants. Acta Biomater. 2014; 10(8): 3363–3371.

[40] Yang J, Cai H, Lv J, Zhang K, Leng H, Sun C, et al. In vivo study of a self-stabilizing artificial vertebral body fabricated by electron beam melting. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014; 39(8): E486–E492.

[41] Matsumoto M, Watanabe K, Tsuji T, Ishii K, Nakamura M, Chiba K, et al. Late instrumentation failure after total en bloc spondylectomy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011; 15(3): 320–327.

[42] Virk SS, Niedermeier S, Yu E, Khan SN. Adjacent segment disease. Orthopedics. 2014; 37(8): 547–555.

[43] Mu X, Li Z, Yin D, Liang B, Ou Y, Wei J. Biomechanical effects of fixation of different segments of goat lumbar spine on adjacent segmental motion and Intradiscal pressure change. Med Sci Monit. 2019; 25: 4885–4891.

[44] Hekimoglu M, Basak A, Yilmaz A, Yildirim H, Aydin AL, Karadag K, et al. Adjacent segment disease (ASD) in incidental segmental fused vertebra and comparison with the effect of stabilization systems on ASD. Cureus. 2021; 13(10): e18647.

[45] Natarajan RN, Andersson GB. Lumbar disc degeneration is an equally important risk factor as lumbar fusion for causing adjacent segment disc disease. J Orthop Res. 2017; 35(1): 123–130.

[46] Cho HJ, Ko YS, Won YI, Lee CH, Yang SH, Kim CH, et al. The efficacy of lumbar hybrid fusion for the prevention of adjacent segment disease: fact or artifact? A meta-analysis. Clin Spine Surg. 2021; 34(7): 260–268.

[47] Cheh G, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Buchowski JM, Daubs MD, Kim Y, et al. Adjacent segment disease followinglumbar/thoracolumbar fusion with pedicle screw instrumentation: a minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007; 32(20): 2253–2257.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.