Object: The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the ventral and lateral surface strain distributions and stiffness for two types of interbody cage placement: 1) central placement for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF); and 2) dorsolateral placement for extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ELIF).
Methods: Two functional spine units were obtained for testing in each of 13 cadaveric spines, yielding 26 segments (three of which were not used because of bone abnormalities). Bilateral strain gauges were mounted adjacent to the endplate on the lateral and ventral walls of each vertebral body in the 23 motion segments. Each segment was cyclically tested in compression, flexion, and extension in the following conditions: while intact, postdiscectomy, and instrumented with interbody fusion cages placed using both insertion techniques. No significant differences were observed between ALIF and ELIF in compressive stiffness, bending stiffness in flexion and extension (p > or = 0.1), ventral and lateral strain distribution during the intact tests (p > or = 0.24), and during the flexion tests after fusion (p > or = 0.22). In compression, higher ventral and lower lateral strain was observed in the ALIF than in the ELIF group (ventral, p = 0.05; lateral, p = 0.04), and in extension, higher ventral (p = 0.01) and higher lateral strain (p = 0.002) was observed in the ELIF than in the ALIF group.
Conclusions: Preservation of the ventral anulus and dorsolateral placement of the interbody cages during ELIF allow alternate load transfer pathways through the dorsolateral vertebral wall and ventral anulus that are not observed following ALIF. These may be associated with a lower incidence of subsidence and a higher rate of fusion due to a more concentrated application of bone healing-enhancing compression forces during the fusion and healing process.