Department of Orthopaedics, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Dongcheng District Shuaifuyuan No. 1, Beijing, 100730, China.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Dec 4;22(1):1015. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04899-x.
It is not clear whether modified facet fusion (MFF) is biomechanically different from traditional fusion techniques such as posterior lateral lumbar fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).
In this study, a healthy adult Chinese male volunteer was selected to perform 3D reconstruction of CT image data and simulate the successful fusion of L4-5 MFF, PLF and PLIF, respectively. The motion range of L4-5 segments of the model was simulated under 6 working conditions, including forward flexion, extension, lateral flexion and rotation under normal physiological conditions, and the stability of the three fusion procedures in the pathological segments of the lumbar spine was compared.
There was no difference in range of motion between MFF model and PLF or PLIF model (P < 0.05). Also, the stiffness of the PLFand the MFF model were comparable (P > 0.05), but were smaller than the PLIF model (P < 0.05).
MFF provides reliable stability at the lumbar fixation fusion level and does not differ significantly from PLF and PLIF in terms of range of motion.
目前尚不清楚改良关节突融合术(MFF)在生物力学上是否与传统的融合技术(如后路腰椎旁融合术 [PLF] 和后路腰椎间融合术 [PLIF])有所不同。
本研究选择一位健康的成年中国男性志愿者,对其 CT 图像数据进行 3D 重建,并分别模拟成功的 L4-5 MFF、PLF 和 PLIF 融合。在 6 种工作条件下模拟模型 L4-5 节段的运动范围,包括正常生理条件下的前屈、伸展、侧屈和旋转,并比较三种融合术在腰椎病变节段的稳定性。
MFF 模型与 PLF 或 PLIF 模型的活动范围无差异(P<0.05)。此外,PLF 和 MFF 模型的刚度相当(P>0.05),但小于 PLIF 模型(P<0.05)。
MFF 在腰椎固定融合水平提供可靠的稳定性,在活动范围方面与 PLF 和 PLIF 无显著差异。