Biomechanical Effects of Titanium Alloy Based Single versus Dual Cage Fusion Devices

Abstract

Degenerative disc disease is an increasing problematic complication following lumbar fusion surgeries. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is a well-established surgical method for spine stability following intervertebral disc removal. The position and number of titanium cages in PLIF are remain contingent on individual surgeon experience. Thus, a systemic investigation of the efficacy of titanium single mega cage versus two cages in treating degenerative lumbar spinal diseases is imperative. A biomechanical study was aimed to compare the stability achieved in PLIF through interbody reconstruction using a single mega cage (32 mm) Vs. a dual cage (22 mm). Normal intact finite element model of L3–L4 was developed based on computed tomography images from a healthy 27-year-old male volunteer. The study tested the intact model (Model A) and its surgically operated counterparts using four PLIF implantation methods: single transverse cage (Model B), single transverse cage with bone graft (Model C), dual transverse cage (Model D), and dual transverse cage with bone graft (Model E). Combined loads simulating physiological motions—flexion, extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending —were applied across all loading directions. The assessment includes all model range of motion (ROM), micromotion between the cage and endplate, and stress on the cage and internal fixation system (screw and rod). The ROM between Models B, C, D and E were consistently reduced by over 71% compared to intact Model A under all motion scenarios. Model D exhibited the highest peak stress of 115 MPa on the cage during flexion, surpassing Model C and E (Flexion) by fourfold. Model E demonstrated the lowest cage stress (20 MPa) during extension, outperforming the other models. Notably, Model E exhibited minimal endplate stress (2 MPa), cage stress (21 MPa), micromotion (13 µm) during extension, and screw-rod stress (56 MPa) during flexion, making it superior to other implantation methods. In the context of PLIF, Model E showed enhanced biomechanical stability, reducing ROM, stress on the endplates, cage, screw-rod system and micromotion. Alternatively, Model C may be a viable alternative in standard PLIF, especially in cases with limited intervertebral space, providing efficient clinical outcomes with shorter operative times and reduced costs and ease of implantation. Also, this computational study provides valuable understandings into optimizing cage implantation strategies for improved outcomes during PLIF.