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

Sajad Azizi, Mohammad Nikkhoo, Mostafa Rostami, Chih-Hsiu Cheng
Author Information
  1. Sajad Azizi: Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Medical Sciences and Technologies, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
  2. Mohammad Nikkhoo: School of Physical Therapy and Graduate Institute of Rehabilitation Science, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
  3. Mostafa Rostami: Department of Biomedical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
  4. Chih-Hsiu Cheng: School of Physical Therapy and Graduate Institute of Rehabilitation Science, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.

Abstract

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 L/L 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.

Keywords

References

  1. Eur Spine J. 2018 Aug;27(8):1905-1910 [PMID: 29352353]
  2. Eur Spine J. 2014 Jul;23(7):1384-93 [PMID: 24647596]
  3. Eur Spine J. 2018 Sep;27(9):2262-2271 [PMID: 30039253]
  4. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021 Oct 18;9:724854 [PMID: 34733828]
  5. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Sep 15;32(20):2253-7 [PMID: 17873819]
  6. Global Spine J. 2022 Jul;12(6):1192-1198 [PMID: 33334181]
  7. Spine J. 2010 May;10(5):404-9 [PMID: 20421075]
  8. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2019 Apr;22(5):451-464 [PMID: 30714401]
  9. J Clin Neurosci. 2014 Oct;21(10):1796-801 [PMID: 24880486]
  10. Eur Spine J. 2016 Sep;25(9):2929-37 [PMID: 27465240]
  11. J Hum Kinet. 2016 Apr 13;50:53-62 [PMID: 28149341]
  12. Neurosurg Focus. 2009 Sep;27(3):E9 [PMID: 19722824]
  13. Orthop Surg. 2014 May;6(2):118-20 [PMID: 24890293]
  14. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Sep 1;29(17):1938-44 [PMID: 15534420]
  15. Eur Spine J. 1997;6(6):393-7 [PMID: 9455667]
  16. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994 Nov 15;19(22):2598-602 [PMID: 7855687]
  17. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2010;50(8):645-50 [PMID: 20805646]
  18. J Biomech. 2006;39(3):510-21 [PMID: 16389091]
  19. Neurosurgery. 2010 Dec;67(6):1600-7; discussion 1607-8 [PMID: 21107190]
  20. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 May 15;24(10):1023-8 [PMID: 10332796]
  21. Sci Rep. 2021 Sep 9;11(1):17892 [PMID: 34504207]
  22. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Nov 1;23(21):2282-7; discussion 2288 [PMID: 9820907]
  23. Med Eng Phys. 2016 Apr;38(4):333-8 [PMID: 26922676]
  24. J Orthop Res. 2017 Jan;35(1):131-139 [PMID: 27364167]
  25. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007 Jul;7(1):21-6 [PMID: 17633483]
  26. J Anat. 1973 Dec;116(Pt 3):476-7 [PMID: 4275503]
  27. Lancet. 2007 Oct 20;370(9596):1453-7 [PMID: 18064739]
  28. Ann Biomed Eng. 2024 Feb;52(2):259-269 [PMID: 37741902]
  29. Acta Orthop. 2007 Dec;78(6):834-9 [PMID: 18236192]
  30. Eur Spine J. 2022 Jul;31(7):1630-1639 [PMID: 35633382]
  31. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Jun 15;25(12):1477-83 [PMID: 10851095]
  32. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Aug 1;31(17):1952-6 [PMID: 16924212]
  33. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010 Jun;12(6):671-9 [PMID: 20515354]
  34. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 Aug 1;39(17):1373-83 [PMID: 24859589]
  35. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2014 Apr;25(2):279-304 [PMID: 24703447]
  36. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Dec 1;29(23):2724-32 [PMID: 15564921]
  37. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Dec 13;22(1):1038 [PMID: 34903182]
  38. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Jul 15;35(16):E761-7 [PMID: 20634658]
  39. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1985;212:1-45 [PMID: 3859987]
  40. Sci Rep. 2020 Sep 3;10(1):14635 [PMID: 32884010]
  41. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Feb 15;31(4):414-9 [PMID: 16481951]
  42. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019 Apr;13(Suppl 1):S31-S34 [PMID: 30930717]
  43. Eur Spine J. 2021 Sep;30(9):2622-2630 [PMID: 34259908]
  44. Spine Deform. 2019 Jul;7(4):543-552 [PMID: 31202369]
  45. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011 Aug;19(8):1011-8 [PMID: 21549847]
  46. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Nov 1;38(23):2049-55 [PMID: 23963015]
  47. Eur Spine J. 2009 Jun;18(6):830-40 [PMID: 19387697]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0COSMISspinalfusionstudymuscleSurgeryadjacentsegmentsspondylolisthesismodelsurgeryloadbiomechanicalConventionalOpenMinimallyInvasivetechniquesdevelopingASDcomparepatientssignificantlygreaterLPRincreasedlowermaintainscurvatureSurgicalSpondylolisthesisMusculoskeletalBackground:impactsversuspotentialroleAdjacentSegmentDiseaseremainuncertainObjective:aimedinvestigateimpactsurgeriesinjuryMaterialMethods:prospectivenon-randomizedcontrolsusedvalidatedmusculoskeletaleffectsL/Lincorporatedkinematicdata30underwentsittingtasksimulatedpost-operativeatrophyanalysisfocusedchangesbiomechanicsResults:Lumbarflexion201%vsdespitesimilarpelvictiltConsequentlyLumbopelvicRhythmalso133%alteredinter-segmentalmomentsinter-jointhigherjoint'scompressive67%AdditionallyrequiredoverallforcereducedloadspassivemomentjointscomparedConclusion:demonstratespreservesphysiologicalbetternormallumbarlordosisopencanleadabnormalforcescompensatestabilityemphasizesimportanceparaspinalmusclesinfluencingdistributionBiomechanicalEvaluationEffectTechniquesPatientsusingModelProceduresMIS-PModelsMSSpine

Similar Articles

Cited By