Biomechanical stability of lumbar spine instrumented with interbody fixation: which construct provides better stability?

Mohammadjavad Einafshar*, Ali Kiapour, Elie Massaad, John Shin

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to conference without publisher/journalConference abstract for conferenceResearchpeer-review

39 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Low fusion rates and cage subsidence have been reported as the main drawbacks of lumbar fixation with static interbody cages [1]. Although several clinical and biomechanical studies have evaluated the efficacy of 360 interbody fixation constructs (Anterior cage plus posterior fixation) [2], no study has reported the biomechanical comparison between such constructs and more novel techniques which use standalone fixation implants. A cadaver validated computational model of lumbar spine was used to compare the biomechanics of spine instrumented with 360 fixations versus standalone cage with screw and cage with lateral plate systems.
To compare the mechanical stability of different interbody fixation techniques in lumbar spinal segments with standalone interbody versus static cage with posterior fixation or lateral plate system.
Original languageEnglish
Publication date12 Jul 2023
Publication statusPublished - 12 Jul 2023
Event28th congress of the European Society of Biomechanics - Maastrict, Netherlands
Duration: 9 Jul 202312 Jul 2023
Conference number: 28
https://esbiomech.org/conference/esb2023/
https://esbiomech.org/conference/esb2023/#nav_extended

Conference

Conference28th congress of the European Society of Biomechanics
Number28
Country/TerritoryNetherlands
CityMaastrict
Period09/07/202312/07/2023
Internet address

Keywords

  • Spine Biomechanics

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Biomechanical stability of lumbar spine instrumented with interbody fixation: which construct provides better stability?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this