Scholarlink

Objective <p>This finite element study aimed to compare the biomechanical differences between anterior and central cage placement in L3-L4 XLIF supplemented with bilateral pedicle screw fixation, to evaluate the biomechanical impact of cage positioning on minimizing cage subsidence risk.</p> Methods <p>Three L1-L5 finite element models were developed from healthy volunteer CT data: intact (Group A), L3-L4 XLIF with anterior cage placement (Group B), and central cage placement (Group C). Loads simulating flexion, extension, lateral bending, and rotation were applied. Segmental stability and cage stress distribution were analyzed.</p> Results <p>Both surgical groups markedly decreased range of motion (ROM) at L3-L4 compared to Group A. The peak stress on the cage was consistently lower in Group B than in Group C across all motions. The screw-rod system stress in Group B was higher than in Group C in all motions except flexion. Facet joint stress in adjacent segments was higher in Group C than in Groups A and B.</p> Conclusion <p>In this finite element model, anterior cage placement was associated with lower cage stress and higher posterior instrumentation stress than central placement, while segmental stability remained similar. These results indicate a different load-sharing pattern and suggest potential biomechanical differences in adjacent segment loading. Further research is needed to clarify the clinical implications.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Biomechanical advantage of anterior over central cage placement in XLIF with bilateral pedicle screw fixation: a finite element analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月9日

查看全文
  • Liang Wu,
  • Jingxuan Feng,
  • Ruijue Zhu,
  • Peng Cui,
  • Wei Zhang,
  • Guangbao Li,
  • Shenghui Huang,
  • Xianhua Cai,
  • Wenbin Wu,
  • Lei He

摘要

Objective

This finite element study aimed to compare the biomechanical differences between anterior and central cage placement in L3-L4 XLIF supplemented with bilateral pedicle screw fixation, to evaluate the biomechanical impact of cage positioning on minimizing cage subsidence risk.

Methods

Three L1-L5 finite element models were developed from healthy volunteer CT data: intact (Group A), L3-L4 XLIF with anterior cage placement (Group B), and central cage placement (Group C). Loads simulating flexion, extension, lateral bending, and rotation were applied. Segmental stability and cage stress distribution were analyzed.

Results

Both surgical groups markedly decreased range of motion (ROM) at L3-L4 compared to Group A. The peak stress on the cage was consistently lower in Group B than in Group C across all motions. The screw-rod system stress in Group B was higher than in Group C in all motions except flexion. Facet joint stress in adjacent segments was higher in Group C than in Groups A and B.

Conclusion

In this finite element model, anterior cage placement was associated with lower cage stress and higher posterior instrumentation stress than central placement, while segmental stability remained similar. These results indicate a different load-sharing pattern and suggest potential biomechanical differences in adjacent segment loading. Further research is needed to clarify the clinical implications.