Biomechanical analysis of an interspinous fusion device as a stand-alone and as supplemental fixation to posterior expandable interbody cages in the lumbar spine

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabrina A. Gonzalez-Blohm ◽  
James J. Doulgeris ◽  
Kamran Aghayev ◽  
William E. Lee ◽  
Andrey Volkov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Decompression Surgery ◽  
Friedman Test ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Fusion Device ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Supplemental Fixation

Object In this paper the authors evaluate through in vitro biomechanical testing the performance of an interspinous fusion device as a stand-alone device, after lumbar decompression surgery, and as supplemental fixation to expandable cages in a posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) construct. Methods Nine L3–4 human cadaveric spines were biomechanically tested under the following conditions: 1) intact/control; 2) L3–4 left hemilaminotomy with partial discectomy (injury); 3) interspinous spacer (ISS); 4) bilateral pedicle screw system (BPSS); 5) bilateral hemilaminectomy, discectomy, and expandable posterior interbody cages with ISS (PLIF-ISS); and 6) PLIF-BPSS. Each test consisted of 100 N of axial preload with ± 7.5 Nm of torque in flexion-extension, right/left lateral bending, and right/left axial rotation. Significant changes in range of motion (ROM), neutral zone stiffness (NZS), elastic zone stiffness (EZS), and energy loss (EL) were explored among conditions using nonparametric Friedman test and Wilcoxon signed-rank comparisons (p ≤ 0.05). Results The injury increased ROM in flexion (p = 0.01), left bending (p = 0.03), and right/left rotation (p < 0.01) and also decreased NZS in flexion (p = 0.01) and extension (p < 0.01). Both the ISS and BPSS reduced flexion-extension ROM and increased flexion-extension stiffness (NZS and EZS) with respect to the injury and intact conditions (p < 0.05), but the ISS condition provided greater resistance than BPSS in extension for ROM, NZS, and EZS (p < 0.01). The BPSS increased the rigidity (ROM, NZS, and EZS) of the intact model in lateral bending and axial rotation (p ≤ 0.01), except in EZS for left rotation (p = 0.23, Friedman test). The incorporation of posterior cages marginally increased (p = 0.05) the EZS of the BPSS construct in flexion but these interbody devices provided significant stability to the ISS construct in lateral bending and axial rotation for ROM (p = 0.02), in lateral bending for NZS (p = 0.02), and in flexion/axial rotation for EZS (p ≤ 0.03); however, both PLIF constructs demonstrated equivalent ROM and stiffness (p ≥ 0.16), except in lateral bending where the PLIF-BPSS was more stable (p = 0.02). In terms of EL, the injury increased EL in flexion-extension (p = 0.02), the ISS increased EL for lateral bending and axial rotation (p ≤ 0.03), and the BPSS decreased EL in lateral bending (p = 0.02), with respect to the intact condition. The PLIF-ISS decreased lateral bending EL with respect to the ISS condition (p = 0.02), but not enough to be smaller or, at least, equivalent, to that of the PLIF-BPSS construct (p = 0.02). Conclusions The ISS may be a suitable device to provide immediate flexion-extension balance after a unilateral laminotomy, but the BPSS provides greater immediate stability in lateral bending and axial rotation motions. Both PLIF constructs performed equivalently in flexion-extension and axial rotation, but the PLIF-BPSS construct is more resistant to lateral bending motions. Further biomechanical and clinical evidence is required to strongly support the recommendation of a stand-alone interspinous fusion device or as supplemental fixation to expandable posterior interbody cages.

scholarly journals Comprehensive biomechanical analysis of three reconstruction techniques following total sacrectomy: an in vitro human cadaveric model

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 570-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Macki ◽  
Rafael De la Garza-Ramos ◽  
Ashley A. Murgatroyd ◽  
Kenneth P. Mullinix ◽  
Xiaolei Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Axial Compression ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Iliac Screws ◽  
Intact Condition ◽  
Cadaveric Model

OBJECTIVEAggressive sacral tumors often require en bloc resection and lumbopelvic reconstruction. Instrumentation failure and pseudarthrosis remain a clinical concern to be addressed. The objective in this study was to compare the biomechanical stability of 3 distinct techniques for sacral reconstruction in vitro.METHODSIn a human cadaveric model study, 8 intact human lumbopelvic specimens (L2–pelvis) were tested for flexion-extension range of motion (ROM), lateral bending, and axial rotation with a custom-designed 6-df spine simulator as well as axial compression stiffness with the MTS 858 Bionix Test System. Biomechanical testing followed this sequence: 1) intact spine; 2) sacrectomy (no testing); 3) Model 1 (L3–5 transpedicular instrumentation plus spinal rods anchored to iliac screws); 4) Model 2 (addition of transiliac rod); and 5) Model 3 (removal of transiliac rod; addition of 2 spinal rods and 2 S-2 screws). Range of motion was measured at L4–5, L5–S1/cross-link, L5–right ilium, and L5–left ilium.RESULTSFlexion-extension ROM of the intact specimen at L4–5 (6.34° ± 2.57°) was significantly greater than in Model 1 (1.54° ± 0.94°), Model 2 (1.51° ± 1.01°), and Model 3 (0.72° ± 0.62°) (p < 0.001). Flexion-extension at both the L5–right ilium (2.95° ± 1.27°) and the L5–left ilium (2.87° ± 1.40°) for Model 3 was significantly less than the other 3 cohorts at the same level (p = 0.005 and p = 0.012, respectively). Compared with the intact condition, all 3 reconstruction groups statistically significantly decreased lateral bending ROM at all measured points. Axial rotation ROM at L4–5 for Model 1 (2.01° ± 1.39°), Model 2 (2.00° ± 1.52°), and Model 3 (1.15° ± 0.80°) was significantly lower than the intact condition (5.02° ± 2.90°) (p < 0.001). Moreover, axial rotation for the intact condition and Model 3 at L5–right ilium (2.64° ± 1.36° and 2.93° ± 1.68°, respectively) and L5–left ilium (2.58° ± 1.43° and 2.93° ± 1.71°, respectively) was significantly lower than for Model 1 and Model 2 at L5–right ilium (5.14° ± 2.48° and 4.95° ± 2.45°, respectively) (p = 0.036) and L5–left ilium (5.19° ± 2.34° and 4.99° ± 2.31°) (p = 0.022). Last, results of the axial compression testing at all measured points were not statistically different among reconstructions.CONCLUSIONSThe addition of a transverse bar in Model 2 offered no biomechanical advantage. Although the implementation of 4 iliac screws and 4 rods conferred a definitive kinematic advantage in Model 3, that model was associated with significantly restricted lumbopelvic ROM.

scholarly journals Biomechanical Analysis of an Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Pseudarthrosis Model Revised With Machined Interfacet Allograft Spacers

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 973-981
Author(s):  
Raymond J. Hah ◽  
Ram Alluri ◽  
Paul A. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Anterior Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Single Level ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Potential Applications

Study Design: Biomechanics study. Objectives: To evaluate the biomechanical advantage of interfacet allograft spacers in an unstable single-level and 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) pseudoarthrosis model. Methods: Nine single-level and 8 two-level ACDF constructs were tested. Range of motion in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) at 1.5 N m were collected in 4 testing configurations: (1) intact spine, (2) ACDF with interbody graft and plate/screw, (3) ACDF with interbody graft and plate/loosened screws (loose condition), and (4) ACDF with interbody graft and plate/loosened screws supplemented with interfacet allograft spacers (rescue condition). Results: All fixation configurations resulted in statistically significant decreases in range of motion in all bending planes compared with the intact spine ( P < .05). One Level. Performing ACDF with interbody graft and plate on the intact spine reduced FE, LB, and AR 60.0%, 64.9%, and 72.9%, respectively. Loosening the ACDF screws decreased these reductions to 40.9%, 44.6%, and 52.1%. The addition of interfacet allograft spacers to the loose condition increased these reductions to 74.0%, 84.1%, and 82.1%. Two Level. Performing ACDF with interbody graft and plate on the intact spine reduced FE, LB, and AR 72.0%, 71.1%, and 71.2%, respectively. Loosening the ACDF screws decreased these reductions to 55.4%, 55.3%, and 51.3%. The addition of interfacet allograft spacers to the loose condition significantly increased these reductions to 82.6%, 91.2%, and 89.3% ( P < .05). Conclusions: Supplementation of a loose ACDF construct (pseudarthrosis model) with interfacet allograft spacers significantly increases stability and has potential applications in treating cervical pseudarthrosis.

Immediate Stiffness of the C5–C6 Segment after Discectomy with the Cloward Technique: An in Vitro Biomechanical Study on a Human Cadaveric Model

Neurosurgery ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 49 (6) ◽  
pp. 1399-1408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrzej Maciejczak ◽  
Michał Ciach ◽  
Maciej Radek ◽  
Andrzej Radek ◽  
Jan Awrejcewicz
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Spinal Instrumentation ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Postoperative Management ◽  
Biomechanical Study ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Cloward Procedure ◽  
Flexion Extension

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To determine whether the Cloward technique of cervical discectomy and fusion increases immediate postoperative stiffness of single cervical motion segment after application of interbody dowel bone graft. METHODS We measured and compared the stiffness of single-motion segments in cadaveric cervical spines before and immediately after interbody fusion with the Cloward technique. Changes in range of motion and stiffness of the C5–C6 segment were measured in a bending flexibility test (flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation) before and after a Cloward procedure in 11 fresh-frozen human cadaveric specimens from the 4th through the 7th vertebrae. RESULTS The Cloward procedure produced a statistically significant increase in stiffness of the operated segment in flexion and lateral bending when compared with the intact spine. The less stiff the segment before the operation, the greater the increase in its postoperative flexural stiffness (statistically significant). The Cloward procedure produced nonuniform changes in rotational and extensional stiffness that increased in some specimens and decreased in others. CONCLUSION Our data demonstrate that Cloward interbody fusion increases immediate postoperative stiffness of an operated segment only in flexion and lateral bending in cadaveric specimens in an in vitro environment. Thus, Cloward fusion seems a relatively ineffective method for increasing the stiffness of a construct. This may add to discussion on the use of spinal instrumentation and postoperative management of patients after cervical discectomy, which varies from bracing in hard collars through immobilization in soft collars to no external orthosis.

Stabilizing effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages before and after cyclic loading

2000 ◽  
Vol 92 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Kettler ◽  
Hans-Joachim Wilke ◽  
Rupert Dietl ◽  
Matthias Krammer ◽  
Christianto Lumenta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cyclic Loading ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Stabilizing Effect ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The function of interbody fusion cages is to stabilize spinal segments primarily by distracting them as well as by allowing bone ingrowth and fusion. An important condition for efficient formation of bone tissue is achieving adequate spinal stability. However, the initial stability may be reduced due to repeated movements of the spine during everyday activity. Therefore, in addition to immediate stability, stability after cyclic loading is of remarkable relevance; however, this has not yet been investigated. The object of this study was to investigate the immediate stabilizing effect of three different posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages and to clarify the effect of cyclic loading on the stabilization. Methods. Before and directly after implantation of a Zientek, Stryker, or Ray posterior lumbar interbody fusion cage, 24 lumbar spine segment specimens were each evaluated in a spine tester. Pure lateral bending, flexion—extension, and axial rotation moments (± 7.5 Nm) were applied continuously. The motion in each specimen was measured simultaneously. The specimens were then loaded cyclically (40,000 cycles, 5 Hz) with an axial compression force ranging from 200 to 1000 N. Finally, they were tested once again in the spine tester. Conclusions. In general, a decrease of movement in all loading directions was noted after insertion of the Zientek and Ray cages and an increase of movement after implantation of a Stryker cage. In all three cage groups greater stability was demonstrated in lateral bending and flexion than in extension and axial rotation. Reduced stability during cyclic loading was observed in all three cage groups; however, loss of stability was most pronounced when the Ray cage was used.

Biomechanical analysis of Goel technique for C1–2 fusion

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 639-646 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Park ◽  
Justin K. Scheer ◽  
T. Jesse Lim ◽  
Vedat Deviren ◽  
Christopher P. Ames
Keyword(s):  
Motion Tracking ◽  
Tracking System ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Rod System ◽  
Harms Technique

Object The Goel technique, in which C1–2 intraarticular spacers are used, may be performed to restore stability to a disrupted atlantoaxial complex in conjunction with the Harms technique of placing polyaxial screws and bilateral rods. However, it has yet to be determined biomechanically whether the addition of the C1–2 joint spacers increases the multiaxial rigidity of the fixation construct. The goal of this study was to quantify changes in multiaxial rigidity of the combined Goel-Harms technique with the addition of C1–2 intraarticular spacers. Methods Seven cadaveric cervical spines (occiput–C2) were submitted to nondestructive flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation tests in a material testing machine spine tester. The authors applied 1.5 Nm at a rate of 0.1 Nm/second and held it constant for 10 seconds. The specimens were loaded 3 times, and data were collected on the third cycle. Testing of the specimens was performed for the following groups: 1) intact (I); 2) with the addition of C-1 lateral mass/C-2 pedicle screws and rod system (I+SR); 3) with C1–2 joint capsule incision, decortication (2 mm on top and bottom of each joint [that is, the C-1 and C-2 surface) and addition of bilateral C1–2 intraarticular spacers at C1–2 junction to the screws and rods (I+SR+C); 4) after removal of the posterior rods and only the bilateral spacers in place (I+C); 5) after removal of spacers and further destabilization with simulated odontoidectomy for a completely destabilized case (D); 6) with addition of posterior rods to the destabilized case (D+SR); and 7) with addition of bilateral C1–2 intraarticular spacers at C1–2 junction to the destabilized case (D+SR+C). The motion of C-1 was measured by a 3D motion tracking system and the motion of C-2 was measured by the rotational sensor of the testing system. The range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ) across C-1 and C-2 were evaluated. Results For the intact spine test groups, the addition of screws/rods (I+SR) and screws/rods/cages (I+SR+C) significantly reduced ROM and NZ compared with the intact spine (I) for flexion-extension and axial rotation (p < 0.05) but not lateral bending (p > 0.05). The 2 groups were not significantly different from each other in any bending mode for ROM and NZ, but in the destabilized condition the addition of screws/rods (D+SR) and screws/rods/cages (D+SR+C) significantly reduced ROM and NZ compared with the destabilized spine (D) in all bending modes (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the addition of the C1–2 intraarticular spacers (D+SR+C) significantly reduced ROM (flexion-extension and axial rotation) and NZ (lateral bending) compared with the screws and rods alone (D+SR). Conclusions Study result indicated that both the Goel and Harms techniques alone and with the addition of the C1–2 intraarticular spacers to the Goel-Harms technique are advantageous for stabilizing the atlantoaxial segment. The Goel technique combined with placement of a screw/rod construct appears to result in additional construct rigidity beyond the screw/rod technique and appears to be more useful in very unstable cases.

Biomechanical analysis of stand-alone lumbar interbody cages versus 360° constructs: an in vitro and finite element investigation

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Instrumentation ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Interbody Cage ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Lateral Interbody ◽  
Flexion And Extension

OBJECTIVE Low fusion rates and cage subsidence are limitations of lumbar fixation with stand-alone interbody cages. Various approaches to interbody cage placement exist, yet the need for supplemental posterior fixation is not clear from clinical studies. Therefore, as prospective clinical studies are lacking, a comparison of segmental kinematics, cage properties, and load sharing on vertebral endplates is needed. This laboratory investigation evaluates the mechanical stability and biomechanical properties of various interbody fixation techniques by performing cadaveric and finite element (FE) modeling studies. METHODS An in vitro experiment using 7 fresh-frozen human cadavers was designed to test intact spines with 1) stand-alone lateral interbody cage constructs (lateral interbody fusion, LIF) and 2) LIF supplemented with posterior pedicle screw-rod fixation (360° constructs). FE and kinematic data were used to validate a ligamentous FE model of the lumbopelvic spine. The validated model was then used to evaluate the stability of stand-alone LIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) cages with and without supplemental posterior fixation at the L4–5 level. The FE models of intact and instrumented cases were subjected to a 400-N compressive preload followed by an 8-Nm bending moment to simulate physiological flexion, extension, bending, and axial rotation. Segmental kinematics and load sharing at the inferior endplate were compared. RESULTS The FE kinematic predictions were consistent with cadaveric data. The range of motion (ROM) in LIF was significantly lower than intact spines for both stand-alone and 360° constructs. The calculated reduction in motion with respect to intact spines for stand-alone constructs ranged from 43% to 66% for TLIF, 67%–82% for LIF, and 69%–86% for ALIF in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. In flexion and extension, the maximum reduction in motion was 70% for ALIF versus 81% in LIF for stand-alone cases. When supplemented with posterior fixation, the corresponding reduction in ROM was 76%–87% for TLIF, 86%–91% for LIF, and 90%–92% for ALIF. The addition of posterior instrumentation resulted in a significant reduction in peak stress at the superior endplate of the inferior segment in all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS Stand-alone ALIF and LIF cages are most effective in providing stability in lateral bending and axial rotation and less so in flexion and extension. Supplemental posterior instrumentation improves stability for all interbody techniques. Comparative clinical data are needed to further define the indications for stand-alone cages in lumbar fusion surgery.

Biomechanics of lateral lumbar interbody fusion constructs with lateral and posterior plate fixation

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guy R. Fogel ◽  
Rachit D. Parikh ◽  
Stephen I. Ryu ◽  
Alexander W. L. Turner
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Plate Fixation ◽  
Spinous Process ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Interbody Cage ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Lateral Plate ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Supplemental Fixation

Object Lumbar interbody fusion is indicated in the treatment of degenerative conditions. Laterally inserted interbody cages significantly decrease range of motion (ROM) compared with other cages. Supplemental fixation options such as lateral plates or spinous process plates have been shown to provide stability and to reduce morbidity. The authors of the current study investigate the in vitro stability of the interbody cage with a combination of lateral and spinous process plate fixation and compare this method to the established bilateral pedicle screw fixation technique. Methods Ten L1–5 specimens were evaluated using multidirectional nondestructive moments (± 7.5 N·m), with a custom 6 degrees-of-freedom spine simulator. Intervertebral motions (ROM) were measured optoelectronically. Each spine was evaluated under the following conditions at the L3–4 level: intact; interbody cage alone (stand-alone); cage supplemented with lateral plate; cage supplemented with ipsilateral pedicle screws; cage supplemented with bilateral pedicle screws; cage supplemented with spinous process plate; and cage supplemented with a combination of lateral plate and spinous process plate. Intervertebral rotations were calculated, and ROM data were normalized to the intact ROM data. Results The stand-alone laterally inserted interbody cage significantly reduced ROM with respect to the intact state in flexion-extension (31.6% intact ROM, p < 0.001), lateral bending (32.5%, p < 0.001), and axial rotation (69.4%, p = 0.002). Compared with the stand-alone condition, addition of a lateral plate to the interbody cage did not significantly alter the ROM in flexion-extension (p = 0.904); however, it was significantly decreased in lateral bending and axial rotation (p < 0.001). The cage supplemented with a lateral plate was not statistically different from bilateral pedicle screws in lateral bending (p = 0.579). Supplemental fixation using a spinous process plate was not significantly different from bilateral pedicle screws in flexion-extension (p = 0.476). The combination of lateral plate and spinous process plate was not statistically different from the cage supplemented with bilateral pedicle screws in all the loading modes (p ≥ 0.365). Conclusions A combination of lateral and spinous process plate fixation to supplement a laterally inserted interbody cage helps achieve rigidity in all motion planes similar to that achieved with bilateral pedicle screws.

Biomechanical studies of an artificial disc implant in the human cadaveric spine

2005 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 339-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick W. Hitchon ◽  
Kurt Eichholz ◽  
Christopher Barry ◽  
Paige Rubenbauer ◽  
Aditya Ingalhalikar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biomechanical Testing ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Load Testing ◽  
Artificial Disc ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Intact State ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The authors compared the biomechanical performance of the human cadaveric spine implanted with a metallic ball-and-cup artificial disc at L4–5 with the spine's intact state and after anterior discectomy. Methods. Seven human L2—S1 cadaveric spines were mounted on a biomechanical testing frame. Pure moments of 0, 1.5, 3.0, 4.5, and 6.0 Nm were applied to the spine at L-2 in six degrees of motion (flexion, extension, right and left lateral bending, and right and left axial rotation). The spines were tested in the intact state as well as after anterior L4–5 discectomy. The Maverick disc was implanted in the discectomy defect, and load testing was repeated. The artificial disc created greater rigidity for the spine than was present after discectomy, and the spine performed biomechanically in a manner comparable with the intact state. Conclusions. The results indicate that in an in vitro setting, this model of artificial disc stabilizes the spine after discectomy, restoring motion comparable with that of the intact state.

In Vitro Study of the C2-C7 Sheep Cervical Spine

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole A. DeVries ◽  
Anup A. Gandhi ◽  
Douglas C. Fredericks ◽  
Joseph D. Smucker ◽  
Nicole M. Grosland
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Disc Space ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Biomechanical Responses ◽  
Experimental Biomechanics

Due to the limited availability of human cadaveric specimens, animal models are often utilized for in vitro studies of various spinal disorders and surgical techniques. Sheep spines have similar geometry, disc space, and lordosis as compared to humans [1,2]. Several studies have identified the geometrical similarities between the sheep and human spine; however these studies have been limited to quantifying the anatomic dimensions as opposed to the biomechanical responses [2–3]. Although anatomical similarities are important, biomechanical correspondence is imperative to understand the effects of disorders, surgical techniques, and implant designs. Some studies [3–5] have focused on experimental biomechanics of the sheep cervical functional spinal units (FSUs). Szotek and colleagues [1] studied the biomechanics of compression and impure flexion-extension for the C2-C7 intact sheep spine. However, to date, there is no comparison of the sheep spine using pure flexion-extension, lateral bending, or axial rotation moments for multilevel specimen. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to conduct in vitro testing of the intact C2-C7 sheep cervical spine.

An in Vitro Biomechanical Model of Differing Pedicle Screw Configurations for Long Construct Segmental Thoracic Fixation

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 718-723 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Tuchman ◽  
Alexander W L Turner ◽  
Melodie F Metzger ◽  
Frank L Acosta
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Biomechanical Model ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Strain Gauges ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Lower Strain ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Fixation Points ◽  
Post Hoc

Abstract BACKGROUND The optimum pattern of pedicle screw (PS) fixation during long-segment thoracic fixation has not been determined. OBJECTIVE To evaluate rod stress and construct stability with minimal, alternating, skipped, and bilateral PS constructs in the iatrogenically destabilized thoracic spine. METHODS Eight cadaveric thoracic specimens (T3-T12) were initially tested intact to ±5 Nm using a custom 6 degree-of-freedom spine testing apparatus in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation. Specimens were instrumented with T4-T10 bilateral PS, with Ponte osteotomies to introduce instability. Rods were bent to fit the PS and then spines were tested with the minimal, alternating, skipped, and bilateral fixation patterns. Range of motion (ROM) was calculated from T4-T10 and segmentally. In addition, strain gauges fixed to the spinal rods measured rod stress under FE and LB. Results were compared using ANOVA and post hoc Holm Sidak tests. RESULTS All fixation patterns provided significant reductions in ROM with respect to the intact spine. In all motion planes, minimal provided the least amount of rigidity, while bilateral provide the greatest; however, no statistically significant differences were detected in FE. In LB and axial rotation, skipped, alternating, and bilateral were all significantly more rigid than minimal (P &lt; .01). Rod strains were greatest under LB and correlated with overall construct ROM, where bilateral had significantly lower strain than the other patterns (P &lt; .05). CONCLUSION All constructs effectively decreased thoracic ROM. There was significant improvement in stabilization and decreased rod stress when more fixation points beyond the minimal construct were included.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document