LinkedIn

 آمار

تعداد نشریات20
تعداد شماره‌ها1,187
تعداد مقالات10,824
تعداد مشاهده مقاله72,833,581
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله12,911,444
Azizi, Sajad, Nikkhoo, Mohammad, Rostami, Mostafa, Cheng, Chih-Hsiu. (1403). Biomechanical Evaluation of the Effect of MIS and COS Surgical Techniques on Patients with Spondylolisthesis using a Musculoskeletal Model. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 15(1), 49-66. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2406-1781
Sajad Azizi; Mohammad Nikkhoo; Mostafa Rostami; Chih-Hsiu Cheng. "Biomechanical Evaluation of the Effect of MIS and COS Surgical Techniques on Patients with Spondylolisthesis using a Musculoskeletal Model". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 15, 1, 1403, 49-66. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2406-1781
Azizi, Sajad, Nikkhoo, Mohammad, Rostami, Mostafa, Cheng, Chih-Hsiu. (1403). 'Biomechanical Evaluation of the Effect of MIS and COS Surgical Techniques on Patients with Spondylolisthesis using a Musculoskeletal Model', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 15(1), pp. 49-66. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2406-1781
Azizi, Sajad, Nikkhoo, Mohammad, Rostami, Mostafa, Cheng, Chih-Hsiu. Biomechanical Evaluation of the Effect of MIS and COS Surgical Techniques on Patients with Spondylolisthesis using a Musculoskeletal Model. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1403; 15(1): 49-66. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2406-1781

Biomechanical Evaluation of the Effect of MIS and COS Surgical Techniques on Patients with Spondylolisthesis using a Musculoskeletal Model

Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering
دوره 15، شماره 1، اردیبهشت 2025، صفحه 49-66    اصل مقاله (1.56 M)
نوع مقاله: Original Research
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2406-1781
نویسندگان
Sajad Azizi1؛ Mohammad Nikkhoo* 2، 3؛ Mostafa Rostami4؛ Chih-Hsiu Cheng2، 3
1Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Medical Sciences and Technologies, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2School of Physical Therapy and Graduate Institute of Rehabilitation Science, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
3Bone and Joint Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taiwan
4Department of Biomedical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
چکیده
Background: The biomechanical impacts of Conventional Open Surgery (COS) versus Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) fusion techniques on adjacent segments and their potential role in developing Adjacent Segment Disease (ASD) remain uncertain for spondylolisthesis.
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the impact of MIS and COS fusion surgeries on adjacent spinal segments for spondylolisthesis, through on muscle injury and developing ASD.
Material and Methods: This prospective and non-randomized controls study used a validated musculoskeletal model to compare the biomechanical effects of COS and MIS L4/L5 fusion surgery on patients with spondylolisthesis. The model incorporated kinematic data from 30 patients who underwent each surgery. A sitting task was simulated to model post-operative muscle atrophy, and the analysis focused on changes in biomechanics of adjacent spinal segments.
Results: Lumbar flexion was significantly greater (201%) in MIS vs. COS, despite similar pelvic tilt. Consequently, Lumbopelvic Rhythm (LPR) also increased in MIS (133%). Both techniques altered inter-segmental moments. While inter-joint load was higher in COS, only the lower joint’s compressive load was significantly greater (67%). Additionally, MIS required lower overall muscle force with reduced loads and passive moment on spinal joints compared to COS. 
Conclusion: This study demonstrates that MIS fusion preserves physiological LPR better than COS. MIS maintains normal spinal curvature and maintains lumbar lordosis. While open surgery can lead to abnormal curvature and increased muscle forces to compensate for spinal stability. The study emphasizes the importance of paraspinal muscles in influencing spinal load distribution during MIS compare to COS.

تازه های تحقیق

Sajad Azizi (Google Scholar)

Mohammad Nikkhoo (Google Scholar)

کلیدواژه‌ها
Spondylolisthesis؛ Spine؛ Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures (MIS-P)؛ Conventional Open Surgery (COS)؛ Musculoskeletal Models (MS)
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
مراجع
  1. Lee DY, Lee SH, Maeng DH. Two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: a minimum 3-year follow-up study. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2010;50(8):645-50. doi: 10.2176/nmc.50.645. PubMed PMID: 20805646.
  2. Cheh G, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Buchowski JM, Daubs MD, Kim Y, Baldus C. Adjacent segment disease followinglumbar/thoracolumbar fusion with pedicle screw instrumentation: a minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(20):2253-7. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31814b2d8e. PubMed PMID: 17873819.
  3. Axelsson P, Johnsson R, Strömqvist B. Adjacent segment hypermobility after lumbar spine fusion: no association with progressive degeneration of the segment 5 years after surgery. Acta Orthop. 2007;78(6):834-9. doi: 10.1080/17453670710014635. PubMed PMID: 18236192.
  4. Wai EK, Santos ER, Morcom RA, Fraser RD. Magnetic resonance imaging 20 years after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(17):1952-6. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000228849.37321.a8. PubMed PMID: 16924212.
  5. Seitsalo S, Schlenzka D, Poussa M, Osterman K. Disc degeneration in young patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis treated operatively or conservatively: a long-term follow-up. Eur Spine J. 1997;6(6):393-7. doi: 10.1007/BF01834066. PubMed PMID: 9455667. PubMed PMCID: PMC3467728.
  6. Mannion AF, Leivseth G, Brox JI, Fritzell P, Hägg O, Fairbank JC. Long-term follow up suggests spinal fusion is associated with increased adjacent segment disc degeneration but without influence on clinical outcome. Results of a combined follow-up from 4 rcts: O54 (issls prize paper). In: Spine: Affiliated Society Meeting Abstracts. LWW; 2014. p. 38.
  7. Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE. Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(17):1938-44. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000137069.88904.03. PubMed PMID: 15534420.
  8. Korovessis P, Repantis T, Zacharatos S, Zafiropoulos A. Does Wallis implant reduce adjacent segment degeneration above lumbosacral instrumented fusion? Eur Spine J. 2009;18(6):830-40. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-0976-y. PubMed PMID: 19387697. PubMed PMCID: PMC2899653.
  9. Kaito T, Hosono N, Mukai Y, Makino T, Fuji T, Yonenobu K. Induction of early degeneration of the adjacent segment after posterior lumbar interbody fusion by excessive distraction of lumbar disc space. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;12(6):671-9. doi: 10.3171/2009.12.SPINE08823. PubMed PMID: 20515354.
  10. Stokes IA, Iatridis JC. Mechanical conditions that accelerate intervertebral disc degeneration: overload versus immobilization. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(23):2724-32. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000146049.52152.da. PubMed PMID: 15564921. PubMed PMCID: PMC7173624.
  11. Lotz JC, Chin JR. Intervertebral disc cell death is dependent on the magnitude and duration of spinal loading. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(12):1477-83. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200006150-00005. PubMed PMID: 10851095.
  12. Walter BA, Korecki CL, Purmessur D, Roughley PJ, Michalek AJ, Iatridis JC. Complex loading affects intervertebral disc mechanics and biology. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011;19(8):1011-8. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2011.04.005. PubMed PMID: 21549847. PubMed PMCID: PMC3138834.
  13. Canale ST, Beaty JH. Campbell’s operative orthopaedics e-book: expert consult premium edition-enhanced online features. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2012.
  14. Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, Ishihara H, Tsuji H. Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24(10):1023-8. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199905150-00017. PubMed PMID: 10332796.
  15. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Gejo R, Tsuji H. Preventive measures of back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery in rats. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998;23(21):2282-7. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199811010-00006. PubMed PMID: 9820907.
  16. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. 1994;19(Supplement):2598-602.
  17. Kim JS, Choi WG, Lee SH. Minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis: minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine J. 2010;10(5):404-9. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.022. PubMed PMID: 20421075.
  18. Wong AP, Smith ZA, Stadler JA, Hu XY, Yan JZ, Li XF, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): surgical technique, long-term 4-year prospective outcomes, and complications compared with an open TLIF cohort. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2014;25(2):279-304. doi: 10.1016/j.nec.2013.12.007. PubMed PMID: 24703447.
  19. Bae JS, Lee SH, Kim JS, Jung B, Choi G. Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis: minimum 3 years of follow-up. 2010;67(6):1600-7. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3181f91697. PubMed PMID: 21107190.
  20. Yee TJ, Terman SW, La Marca F, Park P. Comparison of adjacent segment disease after minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Clin Neurosci. 2014;21(10):1796-801. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2014.03.010. PubMed PMID: 24880486.
  21. Seng C, Siddiqui MA, Wong KP, Zhang K, Yeo W, Tan SB, Yue WM. Five-year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a matched-pair comparison study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(23):2049-55. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a8212d. PubMed PMID: 23963015.
  22. Radcliff KE, Kepler CK, Maaieh M, Anderson DG, Rihn J, Albert T, Vaccaro A, Hilibrand A. What is the rate of lumbar adjacent segment disease after percutaneous versus open fusion? Orthop Surg. 2014;6(2):118-20. doi: 10.1111/os.12103. PubMed PMID: 24890293. PubMed PMCID: PMC6583442.
  23. Min JH, Jang JS, Lee SH. Comparison of anterior- and posterior-approach instrumented lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7(1):21-6. doi: 10.3171/SPI-07/07/021. PubMed PMID: 17633483.
  24. Bresnahan L, Fessler RG, Natarajan RN. Evaluation of change in muscle activity as a result of posterior lumbar spine surgery using a dynamic modeling system. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(16):E761-7. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e45a6e. PubMed PMID: 20634658.
  25. Kumaran Y, Shah A, Katragadda A, Padgaonkar A, Zavatsky J, McGuire R, et al. Iatrogenic muscle damage in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and adjacent segment degeneration: a comparative finite element analysis of open and minimally invasive surgeries. Eur Spine J. 2021;30(9):2622-30. doi: 10.1007/s00586-021-06909-x. PubMed PMID: 34259908.
  26. Malakoutian M, Street J, Wilke HJ, Stavness I, Dvorak M, Fels S, Oxland T. Role of muscle damage on loading at the level adjacent to a lumbar spine fusion: a biomechanical analysis. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(9):2929-37. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4686-y. PubMed PMID: 27465240.
  27. Rasmussen J, Iversen K, Engelund BK, Rasmussen S. Biomechanical Evaluation of the Effect of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Compared with Traditional Approaches in Lifting Tasks. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021;9:724854. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.724854. PubMed PMID: 34733828. PubMed PMCID: PMC8558419.
  28. Wong KW, Luk KD, Leong JC, Wong SF, Wong KK. Continuous dynamic spinal motion analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(4):414-9. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000199955.87517.82. PubMed PMID: 16481951.
  29. Pearcy MJ. Stereo radiography of lumbar spine motion. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1985;212:1-45. doi: 10.3109/17453678509154154. PubMed PMID: 3859987.
  30. Arshad R, Zander T, Dreischarf M, Schmidt H. Influence of lumbar spine rhythms and intra-abdominal pressure on spinal loads and trunk muscle forces during upper body inclination. Med Eng Phys. 2016;38(4):333-8. doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2016.01.013. PubMed PMID: 26922676.
  31. Cuschieri S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019;13(Suppl 1):S31-4. doi: 10.4103/sja.SJA_543_18. PubMed PMID: 30930717. PubMed PMCID: PMC6398292.
  32. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. 2007;370(9596):1453-7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X. PubMed PMID: 18064739.
  33. Senteler M, Weisse B, Rothenfluh DA, Farshad MT, Snedeker JG. Fusion angle affects intervertebral adjacent spinal segment joint forces-Model-based analysis of patient specific alignment. J Orthop Res. 2017;35(1):131-9. doi: 10.1002/jor.23357. PubMed PMID: 27364167.
  34. Akhavanfar M, Mir-Orefice A, Uchida TK, Graham RB. An Enhanced Spine Model Validated for Simulating Dynamic Lifting Tasks in OpenSim. Ann Biomed Eng. 2024;52(2):259-69. doi: 10.1007/s10439-023-03368-x. PubMed PMID: 37741902.
  35. Arjmand N, Shirazi-Adl A. Model and in vivo studies on human trunk load partitioning and stability in isometric forward flexions. J Biomech. 2006;39(3):510-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.11.030. PubMed PMID: 16389091.
  36. Ebrahimkhani M, Arjmand N, Shirazi-Adl A. Biomechanical effects of lumbar fusion surgery on adjacent segments using musculoskeletal models of the intact, degenerated and fused spine. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):17892. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-97288-2. PubMed PMID: 34504207. PubMed PMCID: PMC8429534.
  37. Tojima M, Ogata N, Nakahara Y, Haga N. Three-Dimensional Motion Analysis of Lumbopelvic Rhythm During Trunk Extension. J Hum Kinet. 2016;50:53-62. doi: 10.1515/hukin-2015-0141. PubMed PMID: 28149341. PubMed PMCID: PMC5260639.
  38. Beaucage-Gauvreau E, Robertson WSP, Brandon SCE, Fraser R, Freeman BJC, Graham RB, et al. Validation of an OpenSim full-body model with detailed lumbar spine for estimating lower lumbar spine loads during symmetric and asymmetric lifting tasks. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2019;22(5):451-64. doi: 10.1080/10255842.2018.1564819. PubMed PMID: 30714401.
  39. Lu ML, Cheng CH, Chen WC, Fu CJ, Niu CC. Comparisons of Lumbar Muscle Performance Between Minimally-Invasive and Open Lumbar Fusion Surgery at 1-Year Follow-Up. Global Spine J. 2022;12(6):1192-8. doi: 10.1177/2192568220979666. PubMed PMID: 33334181. PubMed PMCID: PMC9210239.
  40. Fu CJ, Chen WC, Lu ML, Cheng CH, Niu CC. Comparison of paraspinal muscle degeneration and decompression effect between conventional open and minimal invasive approaches for posterior lumbar spine surgery. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):14635. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-71515-8. PubMed PMID: 32884010. PubMed PMCID: PMC7471290.
  41. Oppenheimer JH, DeCastro I, McDonnell DE. Minimally invasive spine technology and minimally invasive spine surgery: a historical review. Neurosurg Focus. 2009;27(3):E9. doi: 10.3171/2009.7.FOCUS09121. PubMed PMID: 19722824.
  42. Bogduk N. Proceedings: The posterior lumbar muscles and nerves of the cat. J Anat. 1973;116(Pt 3):476-7. PubMed PMID: 4275503.
  43. Ebrahimkhani M, Arjmand N, Shirazi-Adl A. Adjacent segments biomechanics following lumbar fusion surgery: a musculoskeletal finite element model study. Eur Spine J. 2022;31(7):1630-9. doi: 10.1007/s00586-022-07262-3. PubMed PMID: 35633382.
  44. Haddas R, Xu M, Lieberman I, Yang J. Finite Element Based-Analysis for Pre and Post Lumbar Fusion of Adult Degenerative Scoliosis Patients. Spine Deform. 2019;7(4):543-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jspd.2018.11.008. PubMed PMID: 31202369.
  45. Benditz A, Auer S, Spörrer JF, Wolkerstorfer S, Grifka J, Suess F, Dendorfer S. Regarding loads after spinal fusion, every level should be seen separately: a musculoskeletal analysis. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(8):1905-10. doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5476-5. PubMed PMID: 29352353.
  46. Farshad M, Furrer PR, Wanivenhaus F, Urbanschitz L, Senteler M. Musculoskeletal biomechanics of patients with or without adjacent segment degeneration after spinal fusion. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):1038. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04916-z. PubMed PMID: 34903182. PubMed PMCID: PMC8670136.
  47. Senteler M, Weisse B, Snedeker JG, Rothenfluh DA. Pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch results in increased segmental joint loads in the unfused and fused lumbar spine. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(7):1384-93. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-3132-7. PubMed PMID: 24647596.
  48. Ignasiak D, Peteler T, Fekete TF, Haschtmann D, Ferguson SJ. The influence of spinal fusion length on proximal junction biomechanics: a parametric computational study. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(9):2262-71. doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5700-3. PubMed PMID: 30039253.
  49. Slade CG. Effects of lumbar spinal fusion on lumbopelvic rhythm during activities of daily living [dissertation]. University of Kentucky; 2018. 59p.
  50. Ebrahimkhani M, Arjmand N, Shirazi-Adl A. Biomechanical effects of lumbar fusion surgery on adjacent segments using musculoskeletal models of the intact, degenerated and fused spine. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):17892. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-97288-2. PubMed PMID: 34504207. PubMed PMCID: PMC8429534.
  51. Bauer S, Paulus D. Analysis of the biomechanical effects of spinal fusion to adjacent vertebral segments of the lumbar spine using multi body simulation. International Journal of Simulation. 2014;15(2):1-7. doi: 10.5013/IJSSST.a.15.02.01.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 143,818
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,035


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب