Biomechanical comparison of four types of instrumentation constructs for revision surgery in lumbar adjacent segment disease: A finite element study

Background: Different constructs are applied in revision surgery (RS) for adjacent segment disease (ASD) aiming to further decompress and fixate the affected segment(s) in two ways: replacing or preserving the primary implants. This study aimed to compare the biomechanical properties of four constructs with different configurations. Methods: An T12-L5 finite element (FE) model was constructed and validated. Primary surgery was performed at L4-L5 and instrumented from L3 to L5. Thereafter, RS was undertook by decompressing L2-L3 and fixated with implant-replacing construct A, or implant-preserving construct B, C or D. Range of motion (ROM) and intervertebral disc pressure (IDP) were compared. Maximum von Mises stress on the rods between Construct A and B was evaluated. Results: An obvious reduction of ROM was observed when the FE model was instrumented with four constructs respectively. The overall changing characteristics of ROM were approximately identical among four constructs. The changing characteristic of IDP among four constructs was similar. The degree of IDP reduction of Construct B was comparable to Construct A, while that of Construct C was comparable to Construct D. Maximum von Mises stress on the rods between Construct A and B indicated that no stress concentration was recorded at the locking part of the connector rod. Conclusions: The biomechanics of implant-preserving constructs were comparable to the traditional implantreplacing construct. The location of side-by-side connector could not affect the stability of Construct C and D. Construct B might be an optimal choice in RS for less dissection, less complication and more convenience in manipulation.

Automated summary

By constructing and validating a finite element model, this study compared the biomechanical properties of four different constructs in revision surgery. The results showed that the biomechanics of implant-preserving constructs were comparable to the traditional implant-replacing construct.