Biomechanical Investigation of the Posterior Pedicle Screw Fixation System at Level L4-L5 Lumbar Segment with Traditional and Cortical Trajectories: A Finite Element Study

Abstract

There is no detailed biomechanical research about the hybrid CBT-TT (CBT screws at cranial level and TT screws at caudal level) and TT-CBT (TT screws at cranial level and CBT screws at caudal level) techniques with finite element (FE) method. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate and provide specific biomechanical data of the hybrid lumbar posterior fixation system and compare with traditional pedicle screw and cortical screw trajectories without fusion, in FE method. Specimens were from the anatomy laboratory of Xinjiang Medical University. Four FE models of the L4-L5 lumbar spine segment were generated. For each of these, four implanted models with the following instruments were created: bilateral traditional trajectory screw fixation (TT-TT), bilateral cortical bone trajectory screw fixation (CBT-CBT), hybrid CBT-TT fixation, and hybrid TT-CBT fixation. A 400 N compressive load with 7.5 Nm moments was applied so as to simulate flexion, extension, left lateral bending, right lateral bending, left rotation, and right rotation, respectively. The range of motion (ROM) of the L4-L5 segment and the posterior fixation, the von Mises stress of the intervertebral disc, and the posterior fixation in four implanted models were compared. CBT-TT displayed a lower ROM of the fixation segment (3.82 ± 0.633°) compared to TT-TT (4.78 ± 0.306°) and CBT-CBT (4.23 ± 0.396°). In addition, CBT-TT showed a lower ROM of the posterior fixation (0.595 ± 0.108°) compared to TT-TT (0.795 ± 0.103°) and CBT-CBT (0.758 ± 0.052°). The intervertebral disc stress of CBT-TT (4.435 ± 0.604 MPa) was lower than TT-TT (7.592 ± 0.387 MPa) and CBT-CBT (6.605 ± 0.600 MPa). CBT-TT (20.228 ± 3.044 MPa) and TT-CBT (12.548 ± 2.914 MPa) displayed a lower peak von Mises stress of the posterior fixation compared to TT-TT (25.480 ± 3.737 MPa). The hybrid CBT-TT and TT-CBT techniques offered superior fixation strength compared to the CBT-CBT and TT-TT techniques.