Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 18, 2025
An Anesthesia, Surgery, and Harvest Method for the Evaluation of Transpedicular Screws Using an In Vivo Porcine Lumbar Spine Model
Published on: May 31, 2017
Evaluating the biomechanical effects of pedicle subtraction osteotomy at different lumbar levels: a finite element
Niloufar Shekouhi1, Sudharshan Tripathi1, Alekos Theologis2
1Engineering Center for Orthopedic Research Excellence (E-CORE), Departments of Bioengineering and Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Background:
Pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) is effective for correcting spinal malalignment but is associated with high complication rates. The biomechanical effect of different PSO levels remains unclear, and no finite element (FE) analysis has compared L2-, L3-, L4-, and L5-PSOs.
Purpose:
To assess the effects of PSO level on the spine's global range of motion, stresses on posterior instrumentation, load sharing with the anterior column, and proximal junctional stresses.
Study Design:
A computational biomechanical analysis.
Methods:
A validated 3D spinopelvic FE model (T10-Pelvis) was used to perform PSOs at L2, L3, L4 and L5. Each model was instrumented with a 4-rod configuration (primary rods + in-line satellite rods) from T11-Pelvis. Simulation included a 2-step analysis; (1) applying 300 N to thoracic, 400 N to lumbar, and 400 N to sacrum, and (2) applying a 7.5 Nm moment to the top endplate of the T10 vertebral body. Acetabulum surfaces were fixed in all degrees of freedom. The range of motion, spinopelvic parameters (lumbar lordosis [LL], sacral slope [SS], pelvic incidence [PI], and pelvic tilt [PT]), PSO force, and von Mises stresses were measured. All models were compared with the L3-PSO model and percentage differences were captured.
Results:
Compared to the intact alignment: LL increased by 48%, 45%, 59%, and 56% in the L2-, L3-, L4-, and L5-PSO models; SS increased by 25%, 15%, and 11% while PT decreased by 76%, 53%, and 45% in L2-, L3-, and L4-PSOs (SS and PT approximated intact model in L5-PSO); Lumbar osteotomy did not affect the PI. Compared to L3-PSO: L2-, L4-, and L5-PSOs showed up to 32%, 34%, and 34% lower global ROM. The least T10-T11 ROM was observed in L5-PSO. The left and right SIJ ROM were approximately similar in each model. Amongst all, the L5-PSO model showed the least ROM at the SIJ. Compared to L3-PSO, the L2-, L4-, and L5-PSO models showed up to 67%, 61%, and 78% reduced stresses at the UIV, respectively. Minimum stress at UIV+ was observed in the L3-PSO model. The L2-and L3-PSOs showed the maximum PSO force. The L5-PSO model showed the lowest stresses on the primary rods in all motions.
Conclusion:
Our FE investigation indicates that L5-PSO results in the greatest lumbar lordosis and lowest global, SIJ, and T10-T11 ROMs and stresses on the primary rods, suggesting potential mechanical benefits in reducing the risk of rod breakage. However, L4- and L5-PSOs led to the least force across the osteotomy site, which may increase the risk of pseudarthrosis. These findings provide biomechanical insights that may inform surgical planning, though further clinical investigation is essential to determine the optimal PSO level and validate these results.
Clinical Significance:
Understanding the biomechanical impact of PSO level is crucial for optimizing surgical outcomes and minimizing the risks of postoperative complications.
