Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 1, 2025
Cone Beam Intraoperative Computed Tomography-based Image Guidance for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion
Published on: August 6, 2019
Hybrid cortical bone trajectory and modified cortical bone trajectory techniques in transforaminal lumbar interbody
Yixi Wang1,2, Abulikemu Maimaiti2, Yang Xiao2
1First Clinical Medical College, Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China.
Background:
The academia has increasingly acknowledged the superior biomechanical performance of the hybrid fixation technique in recent years. However, there is a lack of research on the hybrid fixation technique using BCS (Bilateral Cortical Screws) and BMCS (Bilateral Modified Cortical Screws). This study aims to investigate the biomechanical performance of the BCS and BMCS hybrid fixation technique in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at the L4-L5 segment in a complete lumbar-sacral finite element model.
Methods:
Three cadaver specimens are used to construct three lumbar-sacral finite element models. The biomechanical properties of various fixation technologies (BCS-BCS, BMCS-BMCS, BMCS-BCS, and BCS-BMCS) are evaluated at the L4-5 segment with a TLIF procedure conducted, including the range of motion (ROM) of the L4-5 segment, as well as the stress experienced by the cage, screws, and rods. The testing is conducted under specific loading conditions, including a compressive load of 400 N and a torque of 7.5Nm, subjecting the model to simulate flexion, extension, lateral bending, and rotation.
Results:
No significant variations are seen in the ROM at the L4-5 segment when comparing the four fixation procedures during flexion and extension. However, when it comes to lateral bending and rotation, the ROM is ordered in descending order as BCS-BCS, BCS-BMCS, BMCS-BMCS, and BMCS-BCS. The maximum stress experienced by the cage is observed to be highest within the BMCS-BCS technique during movements including flexion, extension, and lateral bending. Conversely, the BMCS-BMCS technique exhibits the highest cage stress levels during rotational movements. The stress applies to the screws and rods order the sequence of BCS-BCS, BCS-BMCS, BMCS-BCS, and BMCS-BMCS throughout all four working conditions.
Conclusion:
The BMCS-BCS technique shows better biomechanical performance with less ROM and lower stress on the internal fixation system compared to other fixation techniques. BMCS-BMCS technology has similar mechanical performance to BMCS-BCS but has more contact area between screws and cortical bone, making it better for patients with severe osteoporosis.
