Journal of Southern Medical University ›› 2023, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (3): 331-339.doi: 10.12122/j.issn.1673-4254.2023.03.01

    Next Articles

Biomechanical analysis of miniplate fixation systems in restorative laminoplasty for spinal canal reconstruction

CHEN Jianmin, LIU Guoyin, BAO Tianyi, BAI Tianting, ZHANG Erlai, ZHAO Jianning   

  1. Department of Orthopedics, Jinling Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210002, China; Xiamen Medical Device Testing and Research Co., Ltd, Xiamen 361022, China
  • Online:2023-03-20 Published:2023-03-20

Abstract: Objective To investigate the biomechanical properties of H-shaped and L-shaped miniplate fixation systems (H-MFS and L-MFS, respectively) in restorative laminoplasty for spinal canal reconstruction (RL-SCR). Methods Laminectomy was performed in a 3D printed L4 vertebral model followed by RL-SCR using H-MFS or L-MFS, and the biomechanical properties of the reconstructed models were evaluated using static and dynamic compression tests. Biomechanical analyses of RL-SCR were also conducted in finite element models of the L3-L5 vertebrae with normal assignment (NA), laminectomy, or fixation with H-MFS or L-MFS, and the range of motion (ROM) of L3-L4 and L4-L5 was evaluated. Results In static compression test, the sustained yield load, compression stiffness, yield displacement and axial displacement- axial load were all significantly greater in H-MFS group (P<0.05). Door closing, lamina collapse and plate breakage occurred in all the models in L-MFS group, and only some models in H-MFS group showed plate cracks and screw loosening. In dynamic compression tests, the peak load in H-MFS group reached 873 N (which was 95% of the average yield load in static compression), significantly greater than that in L-MFS group (P<0.05). The ultimate load in L-MFS group was only 46.59% of that in H-MFS group (P>0.05). In finite element analysis, the ROM of the L3-L4 and L4- L5 segments were significantly smaller in NA, H-MFS and L-MFS groups than in laminectomy group. Compared with NA group, H-MFS group showed a greater ROM during extension, and L-MFS group showed greater ROM in flexion, extension, bending, and rotation; The overall ROM of the vertebral segments decreased in the order of laminectomy group, L-MFS group, H-MFS group, and NA group. Conclusion Laminectomy causes structural destruction of the posterior column of the spine to affect its biomechanical stability. RL-SCR can effectively maintain the biomechanical stability of the spine, and H-MFS is superior to L-MFS in maintaining the integrity and biomechanical properties of the reconstructed spinal canal.

Key words: restorative laminoplasty for spinal canal reconstruction; lamina replantation; three-dimensional printing; static compression; dynamic compression; biomechanics; finite element analysis