The transmission of stress to grafted bone inside a titanium mesh cage used in anterior column reconstruction after total spondylectomy: a finite-element analysis

Abstract

Study design: A finite-element study of posterior alone or anterior/posterior combined instrumentation following total spondylectomy and replacement with a titanium mesh cage used as an anterior strut.

Objectives: To compare the effect of posterior instrumentation versus anterior/posterior instrumentation on transmission of the stress to grafted bone inside a titanium mesh cage following total spondylectomy.

Summary of background data: The most recent reconstruction techniques following total spondylectomy for malignant spinal tumor include a titanium mesh cage filled with autologous bone as an anterior strut. The need for additional anterior instrumentation with posterior pedicle screws and rods is controversial. Transmission of the mechanical stress to grafted bone inside a titanium mesh cage is important for fusion and remodeling. To our knowledge, there are no published reports comparing the load-sharing properties of the different reconstruction methods following total spondylectomy.

Methods: A 3-dimensional finite-element model of the reconstructed spine (T10-L4) following total spondylectomy at T12 was constructed. A Harms titanium mesh cage (DePuy Spine, Raynham, MA) was positioned as an anterior replacement, and 3 types of the reconstruction methods were compared: (1) multilevel posterior instrumentation (MPI) (i.e., posterior pedicle screws and rods at T10-L2 without anterior instrumentation); (2) MPI with anterior instrumentation (MPAI) (i.e., MPAI [Kaneda SR; DePuy Spine] at T11-L1); and (3) short posterior and anterior instrumentation (SPAI) (i.e., posterior pedicle screws and rods with anterior instrumentation at T11-L1). The mechanical energy stress distribution exerted inside the titanium mesh cage was evaluated and compared by finite-element analysis for the 3 different reconstruction methods. Simulated forces were applied to give axial compression, flexion, extension, and lateral bending.

Results: In flexion mode, the energy stress distribution in MPI was higher than 3.0 x 10 MPa in 73.0% of the total volume inside the titanium mesh cage, while 38.0% in MPAI, and 43.3% in SPAI. In axial compression and extension modes, there were no remarkable differences for each reconstruction method. In left-bending mode, there was little stress energy in the cancellous bone inside the titanium mesh cage in MPAI and SPAI.

Conclusions: This experiment shows that from the viewpoint of stress shielding, the reconstruction method, using additional anterior instrumentation with posterior pedicle screws (MPAI and SPAI), stress shields the cancellous bone inside the titanium mesh cage to a higher degree than does the system using posterior pedicle screw fixation alone (MPI). Thus, a reconstruction method with no anterior fixation should be better at allowing stress for remodeling of the bone graft inside the titanium mesh cage.