Comparison of the rigid rod system with modular plate with the finite element analysis in short-segment posterior stabilization in the lower lumbar region

Abstract

ABSTRACTto some limitations in the long term. The biomechanics of the spine are also changing, because it creates non-physiological conditions by blocking movement (16).The idea of fusion in spinal surgery was raised for the first time at the beginning of the last century. When looking at the literature, it has been shown that the importance of spinal fusion was not exactly known before this period, and surgeons were content with fixation. Thereafter, the first fixation in the thoracolumbar spine by using wire was performed by Hadra █ INTRODUCTION T oday, posterior spinal stabilization and fusion interventions occupy an important place in neurosurgical practice. Spinal fusion and instrumentation are often applied to provide stability for an unstable spine, to avoid injury in the neurological structure, to reduce incorrect alignment and deformities, to increase the probability of fusion, and to reduce pain in the long term (8). Although this procedure has a very high success rate, the mechanism of the procedure can lead AIm: Many studies are available in the literature on posterior spinal instrumentation, though the use of a rod and a plate is still controversial in the literature. In this study, a finite element analysis of the strength and superiority of modular rigid plate and rod systems, which are used in the lower lumbar region, in comparison with each other was used. mATERIAl and mEThODS: A Ti6Al4V (Grade 5) titanium biocompatible alloy anterior plate was used for the lumbar spine fixation device, and a finite element analysis was conducted on the human lumbar spine model. In this study, an intact spine, a rigid system fixed with a rod, and modular plate systems were evaluated at flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. RESUlTS:They did not show statistically significant superiority over one another in terms of limitations in movement during the range of motion exercises and rigidity. CONClUSION:The posterior rigid stabilization system and novel stabilization system do not have a significant superiority over one another. Equivalent results in the limitation of movement and rigidity allow for the use of these systems for short-segment posterior spinal instrumentation with the same indications.