The Galveston Technique of Pelvic Fixation with L-Rod Instrumentation of the Spine

Abstract As the popularity of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) continues to grow, novel techniques are needed to meet the demands of multisegment fixation for advanced spinal diseases. In one such example, iliac bolts are often required to anchor large fusion constructs, but MIS technical notes are missing from the literature. A 67-yr-old female presented with a symptomatic coronal deformity: preoperative pelvic incidence = 47°, pelvic tilt = 19°, and lumbar lordosis = 29°, sagittal vertical axis = +5.4 cm with 30° of scoliosis. The operative plan included T10-ilium fusion with transforaminal interbody grafts at L2-3, L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1. The intraoperative video is of minimally invasive placement of iliac bolts using the O-Arm Surgical Imaging System (Medtronic®). The patient consented to the procedure. A mini-open exposure that remains above the fascial planes allows for multilevel instrumentation with appropriate decompression at the interbody segments. After the placement of the pedicle screws under image-guidance, the direction is turned to the minimally invasive iliac bolts. Following the trajectory described in the standard open approach,1 the posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS) is identified with the navigation probe, which will guide the Bovie cautery through the fascia. This opening assists in the trajectory of the navigated-awl tap toward the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS). Next, 8.5 mm x 90 mm iliac screws were placed in the cannulated bone under navigation. After intraoperative image confirmation of screw placement, the contoured rods are threaded under the fascia. The setscrews lock the rod in position. MIS approaches obviate cross-linking the rods, rendering pelvic fixation more facile. This technique allows for minimal dissection of the posterior pelvic soft tissue while maintaining adequate fixation.

Download Full-text

Failure Types and Related Factors of Spinopelvic Fixation After Long Construct Fusion for Adult Spinal Deformity

Neurosurgery ◽

10.1093/neuros/nyaa469 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Se-Jun Park ◽

Jin-Sung Park ◽

Yunjin Nam ◽

Tae-Hoon Yum ◽

Youn-Taek Choi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Ct Scan ◽

Spinal Deformity ◽

Adult Spinal Deformity ◽

Study Cohort ◽

Related Factors ◽

Fixation Failure ◽

Failure Group ◽

Pelvic Fixation ◽

Spinopelvic Fixation

Abstract BACKGROUND Rigid internal fixation of the spine is an essential part of adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. Despite the use of pelvic fixation and anterior column support, spinopelvic fixation failure (SPFF) still remains an issue. Few studies have evaluated the types of such failure or its related factors. OBJECTIVE To classify the types of SPFF and investigate its risk factors, including the fusion status at L5-S1 on CT scan. METHODS The study cohort consisted of ninety-eight ASD patients who underwent more than 4-level fusions to the sacrum with interbody fusion at L5-S1. Patients with SPFF were divided into the two groups: above-S1 and below-S1 failure groups. The patient, surgical, and radiographic variables in each group were compared to those of the no-failure group. The L5-S1 fusion status was assessed using 2-yr computed tomography (CT) scan. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the risk factors for each failure group. RESULTS The mean age was 68.5 yr. Follow-up duration was 55.7 mo. The SPFF developed in 46 (46.9%) patients at 32.7 mo postoperatively. There were 15 patients in the above-S1 failure group and 31 patients in the below-S1 failure group. Multivariate analysis revealed that nonunion at L5-S1 was a single risk factor for above-S1 failure. In contrast, the risk factors for below-S1 failure included a greater number of fused segments and postoperative less thoracic kyphosis. CONCLUSION SPFF develops in different patterns with different risk factors. Above-S1 SPFF was associated with nonunion at L5-S1, while below-S1 SPFF was associated with mechanical stress.

Download Full-text

Instrumentation Techniques Including Sacral and Pelvic Fixation

Spine Surgery ◽

10.1007/978-3-319-98875-7_56 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 465-472

Author(s):

Yann Philippe Charles

Keyword(s):

Pelvic Fixation

Download Full-text

Is L5/S1 interbody fusion necessary in long-segment surgery for adult degenerative scoliosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2021.9.spine21883 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-8

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Interbody Fusion ◽

Case Reports ◽

Adult Spinal Deformity ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽

Lumbosacral Junction ◽

Pelvic Fixation ◽

Group 2 ◽

Group 1

OBJECTIVE There is no consensus regarding the best surgical strategy at the lumbosacral junction (LSJ) in long constructs for adult spinal deformity (ASD). The use of interbody fusion (IF) has been advocated to increase fusion rates, with additional pelvic fixation (PF) typically recommended. The actual benefit of IF even when extending to the pelvis, however, has not been vigorously analyzed. The goal of this work was to better understand the role of IF, specifically with respect to arthrodesis, when extending long constructs to the ilium. METHODS A systematic review of the PubMed and Cochrane databases was performed to identify the relevant studies in English, addressing the management of LSJ in long constructs (defined as ≥ 5 levels) in ASD. The search terms used were as follows: “Lumbosacral Junction,” “Long Constructs,” “Long Fusion to the Sacrum,” “Sacropelvic Fixation,” “Interbody Fusion,” and “Iliac Screw.” The authors excluded technical notes, case reports, literature reviews, and cadaveric studies; pediatric populations; pathologies different from ASD; studies not using conventional techniques; and studies focused only on alignment of different levels. RESULTS The PRISMA protocol was used. The authors found 12 retrospective clinical studies with a total of 1216 patients who were sorted into 3 different categories: group 1, using PF or not (n = 6); group 2, using PF with or without IF (n = 5); and group 3, from 1 study comparing anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Five studies in group 1 and 4 in group 2 had pseudarthrosis rate as primary outcome and were selected for a quantitative analysis. Forest plots were used to display the risk ratio, and funnel plots were used to look at the risk of publication bias. The summary risk ratios were 0.36 (0.23–0.57, p < 0.001) and 1.03 (0.54–1.96, p = 0.94) for the PF and IF, respectively; there is a protective effect of overall pseudarthrosis for using PF in long constructs for ASD surgeries, but not for using IF. CONCLUSIONS The long-held contention that L5/S1 IF is always advantageous in long-construct deformity surgery is not supported by the current literature. Based on the findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis, PF with or without additional L5/S1 interbody grafting demonstrates similar overall construct pseudarthrosis rates. The added risk and costs associated with IF, therefore, should be more closely considered on a case-by-case basis.

Download Full-text