Cortical screws used to rescue failed lumbar pedicle screw construct: a biomechanical analysis

OBJECT Cortical trajectory screw constructs, developed as an alternative to pedicle screw fixation for the lumbar spine, have similar in vitro biomechanics. The possibility of one screw path having the ability to rescue the other in a revision scenario holds promise but has not been evaluated. The objective in this study was to investigate the biomechanical properties of traditional pedicle screws and cortical trajectory screws when each was used to rescue the other in the setting of revision. METHODS Ten fresh-frozen human lumbar spines were instrumented at L3–4, 5 with cortical trajectory screws and 5 with pedicle screws. Construct stiffness was recorded in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. The L-3 screw pullout strength was tested to failure for each specimen and salvaged with screws of the opposite trajectory. Mechanical stiffness was again recorded. The hybrid rescue trajectory screws at L-3 were then tested to failure. RESULTS Cortical screws, when used in a rescue construct, provided stiffness in flexion/extension and axial rotation similar to that provided by the initial pedicle screw construct prior to failure. The rescue pedicle screws provided stiffness similar to that provided by the primary cortical screw construct in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. In pullout testing, cortical rescue screws retained 60% of the original pedicle screw pullout strength, whereas pedicle rescue screws retained 65% of the original cortical screw pullout strength. CONCLUSIONS Cortical trajectory screws, previously studied as a primary mode of fixation, may also be used as a rescue option in the setting of a failed or compromised pedicle screw construct in the lumbar spine. Likewise, a standard pedicle screw construct may rescue a compromised cortical screw track. Cortical and pedicle screws each retain adequate construct stiffness and pullout strength when used for revision at the same level.

Download Full-text

Biomechanical Analysis of Cortical Versus Pedicle Screw Fixation Stability in TLIF, PLIF, and XLIF Applications

Global Spine Journal ◽

10.1177/2192568218779991 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 9 (2) ◽

pp. 162-168 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Edward K. Nomoto ◽

Guy R. Fogel ◽

Alexandre Rasouli ◽

Justin V. Bundy ◽

Alexander W. Turner

Keyword(s):

Pedicle Screw ◽

Interbody Fusion ◽

Screw Fixation ◽

Pedicle Screws ◽

Axial Rotation ◽

Biomechanical Analysis ◽

Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽

Lateral Bending ◽

Cortical Screw ◽

Flexion Extension

Study Design: Cadaveric biomechanical study. Objectives: Medial-to-lateral trajectory cortical screws are of clinical interest due to the ability to place them through a less disruptive, medialized exposure compared with conventional pedicle screws. In this study, cortical and pedicle screw trajectory stability was investigated in single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) constructs. Methods: Eight lumbar spinal units were used for each interbody/screw trajectory combination. The following constructs were tested: TLIF + unilateral facetectomy (UF) + bilateral pedicle screws (BPS), TLIF + UF + bilateral cortical screws (BCS), PLIF + medial facetectomy (MF) + BPS, PLIF + bilateral facetectomy (BF) + BPS, PLIF + MF + BCS, PLIF + BF + BCS, XLIF + BPS, XLIF + BCS, and XLIF + bilateral laminotomy + BCS. Range of motion (ROM) in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation was assessed using pure moments. Results: All instrumented constructs were significantly more rigid than intact ( P < .05) in all test directions except TLIF + UF + BCS, PLIF + MF + BCS, and PLIF + BF + BCS in axial rotation. In general, XLIF and PLIF + MF constructs were more rigid (lowest ROM) than TLIF + UF and PLIF + BF constructs. In the presence of substantial iatrogenic destabilization (TLIF + UF and PLIF + BF), cortical screw constructs tended to be less rigid (higher ROM) than the same pedicle screw constructs in lateral bending and axial rotation; however, no statistically significant differences were found when comparing pedicle and cortical fixation for the same interbody procedures. Conclusions: Both cortical and pedicle trajectory screw fixation provided stability to the 1-level interbody constructs. Constructs with the least iatrogenic destabilization were most rigid. The more destabilized constructs showed less lateral bending and axial rotation rigidity with cortical screws compared with pedicle screws. Further investigation is warranted to understand the clinical implications of differences between constructs.

Download Full-text

Hybrid dynamic stabilization: a biomechanical assessment of adjacent and supraadjacent levels of the lumbar spine

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2012.6.spine111054 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 17 (3) ◽

pp. 232-242 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

Prasath Mageswaran ◽

Fernando Techy ◽

Robb W. Colbrunn ◽

Tara F. Bonner ◽

Robert F. McLain

Keyword(s):

Lumbar Spine ◽

Lumbar Fusion ◽

Industrial Robot ◽

Pedicle Screws ◽

Axial Rotation ◽

Dynamic Stabilization ◽

Follower Load ◽

Lateral Bending ◽

Intact Specimen ◽

Flexion Extension

Object The object of this study was to evaluate the effect of hybrid dynamic stabilization on adjacent levels of the lumbar spine. Methods Seven human spine specimens from T-12 to the sacrum were used. The following conditions were implemented: 1) intact spine; 2) fusion of L4–5 with bilateral pedicle screws and titanium rods; and 3) supplementation of the L4–5 fusion with pedicle screw dynamic stabilization constructs at L3–4, with the purpose of protecting the L3–4 level from excessive range of motion (ROM) and to create a smoother motion transition to the rest of the lumbar spine. An industrial robot was used to apply continuous pure moment (± 2 Nm) in flexion-extension with and without a follower load, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Intersegmental rotations of the fused, dynamically stabilized, and adjacent levels were measured and compared. Results In flexion-extension only, the rigid instrumentation at L4–5 caused a 78% decrease in the segment's ROM when compared with the intact specimen. To compensate, it caused an increase in motion at adjacent levels L1–2 (45.6%) and L2–3 (23.2%) only. The placement of the dynamic construct at L3–4 decreased the operated level's ROM by 80.4% (similar stability as the fusion at L4–5), when compared with the intact specimen, and caused a significant increase in motion at all tested adjacent levels. In flexion-extension with a follower load, instrumentation at L4–5 affected only a subadjacent level, L5–sacrum (52.0%), while causing a reduction in motion at the operated level (L4–5, −76.4%). The dynamic construct caused a significant increase in motion at the adjacent levels T12–L1 (44.9%), L1–2 (57.3%), and L5–sacrum (83.9%), while motion at the operated level (L3–4) was reduced by 76.7%. In lateral bending, instrumentation at L4–5 increased motion at only T12–L1 (22.8%). The dynamic construct at L3–4 caused an increase in motion at T12–L1 (69.9%), L1–2 (59.4%), L2–3 (44.7%), and L5–sacrum (43.7%). In axial rotation, only the placement of the dynamic construct at L3–4 caused a significant increase in motion of the adjacent levels L2–3 (25.1%) and L5–sacrum (31.4%). Conclusions The dynamic stabilization system displayed stability characteristics similar to a solid, all-metal construct. Its addition of the supraadjacent level (L3–4) to the fusion (L4–5) did protect the adjacent level from excessive motion. However, it essentially transformed a 1-level lumbar fusion into a 2-level lumbar fusion, with exponential transfer of motion to the fewer remaining discs.

Download Full-text

Design and development of a novel expanding flexible rod device (FRD) for stability in the lumbar spine: A finite-element study

The International Journal of Artificial Organs ◽

10.1177/0391398820917390 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 43 (12) ◽

pp. 803-810 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Masud Rana ◽

Sandipan Roy ◽

Palash Biswas ◽

Shishir Kumar Biswas ◽

Jayanta Kumar Biswas

Keyword(s):

Finite Element ◽

Lumbar Spine ◽

Range Of Motion ◽

Pedicle Screw ◽

Axial Rotation ◽

Von Mises Stress ◽

Lateral Bending ◽

Intact Bone ◽

Flexion Extension ◽

Von Mises

The aim of this study is to design a novel expanding flexible rod device, for pedicle screw fixation to provide dynamic stability, based on strength and flexibility. Three-dimensional finite-element models of lumbar spine (L1-S) with flexible rod device on L3-L4-L5 levels are developed. The implant material is taken to be Ti-6Al-4V. The models are simulated under different boundary conditions, and the results are compared with intact model. In natural model, total range of motion under 10 Nm moment were found 66.7°, 24.3° and 13.59°, respectively during flexion–extension, lateral bending and axial rotation. The von Mises stress at intact bone was 4 ± 2 MPa and at bone, adjacent to the screw in the implanted bone, was 6 ± 3 MPa. The von Mises stress of disc of intact bone varied from 0.36 to 2.13 MPa while that of the disc between the fixed vertebra of the fixation model reduced by approximately 10% for flexion and 25% for extension compared to intact model. The von Mises stresses of pedicle screw were 120, 135, 110 and 90 MPa during flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, respectively. All the stress values were within the safe limit of the material. Using the flexible rod device, flexibility was significantly increased in flexion/extension but not in axial rotation and lateral bending. The results suggest that dynamic stabilization system with respect to fusion is more effective for homogenizing the range of motion of the spine.

Download Full-text

Biomechanical analysis of Goel technique for C1–2 fusion

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2011.1.spine10446 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 14 (5) ◽

pp. 639-646 ◽

Cited By ~ 27

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.

Download Full-text

Dynamic lumbar pedicle screw-rod stabilization: in vitro biomechanical comparison with standard rigid pedicle screw-rod stabilization

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2009.9.spine0951 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 12 (2) ◽

pp. 183-189 ◽

Cited By ~ 27

Author(s):

Hakan Bozkuş ◽

Mehmet Şenoğlu ◽

Seungwon Baek ◽

Anna G. U. Sawa ◽

Ali Fahir Özer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Pedicle Screw ◽

Stress Shielding ◽

Pedicle Screws ◽

Axial Rotation ◽

Bending Moments ◽

Axial Loads ◽

Lateral Bending ◽

Flexion Extension ◽

Lumbar Stabilization

Object It is unclear how the biomechanics of dynamic posterior lumbar stabilization systems and traditional rigid pedicle screw-rod systems differ. This study examined the biomechanical response of a hinged-dynamic pedicle screw compared with a standard rigid screw used in a 1-level pedicle screw-rod construct. Methods Unembalmed human cadaveric L3–S1 segments were tested intact, after L4–5 discectomy, after rigid pedicle screw-rod fixation, and after dynamic pedicle screw-rod fixation. Specimens were loaded using pure moments to induce flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation while recording motion optoelectronically. Specimens were then loaded in physiological flexion-extension while applying 400 N of compression. Moment and force across instrumentation were recorded from pairs of strain gauges mounted on the interconnecting rods. Results The hinged-dynamic screws allowed an average of 160% greater range of motion during flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation than standard rigid screws (p < 0.03) but 30% less motion than normal. When using standard screws, bending moments and axial loads on the rods were greater than the bending moments and axial loads on the rods when using dynamic screws during most loading modes (p < 0.05). The axis of rotation shifted significantly posteriorly more than 10 mm from its normal position with both devices. Conclusions In a 1-level pedicle screw-rod construct, hinged-dynamic screws allowed a quantity of motion that was substantially closer to normal motion than that allowed by rigid pedicle screws. Both systems altered kinematics similarly. Less load was borne by the hinged screw construct, indicating that the hinged-dynamic screws allow less stress shielding than standard rigid screws.

Download Full-text

Biomechanical evaluation of lumbar pedicle screws in spondylolytic vertebrae: comparison of fixation strength between the traditional trajectory and a cortical bone trajectory

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2015.11.spine15926 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 24 (6) ◽

pp. 910-915 ◽

Cited By ~ 19

Author(s):

Keitaro Matsukawa ◽

Yoshiyuki Yato ◽

Hideaki Imabayashi ◽

Naobumi Hosogane ◽

Takashi Asazuma ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cortical Bone ◽

Pedicle Screws ◽

Axial Rotation ◽

Fixation Strength ◽

Isthmic Spondylolisthesis ◽

Pullout Strength ◽

Lateral Bending ◽

Cortical Bone Trajectory ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Flexion Extension

OBJECTIVE In the management of isthmic spondylolisthesis, the pedicle screw system is widely accepted surgical strategy; however, there are few reports on the biomechanical behavior of pedicle screws in spondylolytic vertebrae. The purpose of the present study was to compare fixation strength between pedicle screws inserted through the traditional trajectory (TT) and those inserted through a cortical bone trajectory (CBT) in spondylolytic vertebrae by computational simulation. METHODS Finite element models of spondylolytic and normal vertebrae were created from CT scans of 17 patients with adult isthmic spondylolisthesis (mean age 54.6 years, 10 men and 7 women). Each vertebral model was implanted with pedicle screws using TT and CBT techniques and compared between two groups. First, fixation strength of a single screw was evaluated by measuring axial pullout strength. Next, vertebral fixation strength of a paired-screw construct was examined by applying forces simulating flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation to vertebrae. RESULTS Fixation strengths of TT screws showed a nonsignificant difference between the spondylolytic and the normal vertebrae (p = 0.31–0.81). Fixation strength of CBT screws in the spondylolytic vertebrae demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in pullout strength (21.4%, p < 0.01), flexion (44.1%, p < 0.01), extension (40.9%, p < 0.01), lateral bending (38.3%, p < 0.01), and axial rotation (28.1%, p < 0.05) compared with those in the normal vertebrae. In the spondylolytic vertebrae, no statistically significant difference was observed for pullout strength between TT and CBT (p = 0.90); however, the CBT construct showed lower vertebral fixation strength in flexion (39.0%, p < 0.01), extension (35.6%, p < 0.01), lateral bending (50.7%, p < 0.01), and axial rotation (59.3%, p < 0.01) compared with the TT construct. CONCLUSIONS CBT screws are less optimal for stabilizing the spondylolytic vertebra due to their lower fixation strength compared with TT screws.

Download Full-text

Biomechanical analysis of a newly developed interspinous process device conjunction with interbody cage based on a finite element model

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0243771 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 15 (12) ◽

pp. e0243771

Author(s):

In-Suk Bae ◽

Koang-Hum Bak ◽

Hyoung-Joon Chun ◽

Je Il Ryu ◽

Sung-Jae Park ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Finite Element ◽

Lumbar Spine ◽

Finite Element Model ◽

Element Model ◽

Axial Rotation ◽

Biomechanical Analysis ◽

Interbody Cage ◽

Lateral Bending ◽

Flexion Extension ◽

Interspinous Process Device

Purpose This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical effects of a newly developed interspinous process device (IPD), called TAU. This device was compared with another IPD (SPIRE) and the pedicle screw fixation (PSF) technique at the surgical and adjacent levels of the lumbar spine. Materials and methods A three-dimensional finite element model analysis of the L1-S1 segments was performed to assess the biomechanical effects of the proposed IPD combined with an interbody cage. Three surgical models—two IPD models (TAU and SPIRE) and one PSF model—were developed. The biomechanical effects, such as range of motion (ROM), intradiscal pressure (IDP), disc stress, and facet loads during extension were analyzed at surgical (L3-L4) and adjacent levels (L2-L3 and L4-L5). The study analyzed biomechanical parameters assuming that the implants were perfectly fused with the lumbar spine. Results The TAU model resulted in a 45%, 49%, 65%, and 51% decrease in the ROM at the surgical level in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, respectively, when compared to the intact model. Compared to the SPIRE model, TAU demonstrated advantages in stabilizing the surgical level, in all directions. In addition, the TAU model increased IDP at the L2-L3 and L4-L5 levels by 118.0% and 78.5% in flexion, 92.6% and 65.5% in extension, 84.4% and 82.3% in lateral bending, and 125.8% and 218.8% in axial rotation, respectively. Further, the TAU model exhibited less compensation at adjacent levels than the PSF model in terms of ROM, IDP, disc stress, and facet loads, which may lower the incidence of the adjacent segment disease (ASD). Conclusion The TAU model demonstrated more stabilization at the surgical level than SPIRE but less stabilization than the PSF model. Further, the TAU model demonstrated less compensation at adjacent levels than the PSF model, which may lower the incidence of ASD in the long term. The TAU device can be used as an alternative system for treating degenerative lumbar disease while maintaining the physiological properties of the lumbar spine and minimizing the degeneration of adjacent segments.

Download Full-text

Biomechanics of C-7 transfacet screw fixation

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2009.3.spine08785 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 11 (3) ◽

pp. 338-343 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Eric M. Horn ◽

Phillip M. Reyes ◽

Seungwon Baek ◽

Mehmet Senoglu ◽

Nicholas Theodore ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Pedicle Screw ◽

Normal Condition ◽

Small Diameter ◽

Pedicle Screws ◽

Axial Rotation ◽

Lateral Bending ◽

Screw Insertion ◽

Loading Mode ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Flexion Extension

Object The small diameter of the pedicle can make C-7 pedicle screw insertion dangerous. Although transfacet screws have been studied biomechanically when used in pinning joints, they have not been well studied when used as part of a C7–T1 screw/rod construct. The authors therefore compared C7–T1 fixation using a C-7 transfacet screw/T-1 pedicle screw construct with a construct composed of pedicle screws at both levels. Methods Each rigid posterior screw/rod construct was placed in 7 human cadaveric C6–T2 specimens (14 total). Specimens were tested in normal condition, after 2-column instability, and once fixated. Nondestructive, nonconstraining pure moments (maximum 1.5 Nm) were applied to induce flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation while recording 3D motion optoelectronically. The entire construct was then loaded to failure by dorsal linear force. Results There was no significant difference in angular range of motion between the 2 instrumented groups during any loading mode (p > 0.11, nonpaired t-tests). Both constructs reduced motion to < 2° in any direction and allowed significantly less motion than in the normal condition. The C-7 facet screw/T-1 pedicle screw construct allowed a small but significantly greater lax zone than the pedicle screw/rod construct during lateral bending, and it failed under significantly less load than the pedicle screw/rod construct (p < 0.001). Conclusions When C-7 transfacet screws are connected to T-1 pedicle screws, they provide equivalent stability of constructs formed by pedicle screws at both levels. Although less resistant to failure, the transfacet screw construct should be a viable alternative in patients with healthy bone.

Download Full-text

Adjacent-segment effects of lumbar cortical screw–rod fixation versus pedicle screw–rod fixation with and without interbody support

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2020.11.spine20977 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-7

Author(s):

Piyanat Wangsawatwong ◽

Anna G. U. Sawa ◽

Bernardo de Andrada Pereira ◽

Jennifer N. Lehrman ◽

Luke K. O’Neill ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Pedicle Screw ◽

Interbody Fusion ◽

Lumbar Fusion ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

Adjacent Segment ◽

Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽

Lateral Bending ◽

Single Level ◽

Cortical Screw ◽

Flexion Extension

OBJECTIVE Cortical screw–rod (CSR) fixation has emerged as an alternative to the traditional pedicle screw–rod (PSR) fixation for posterior lumbar fixation. Previous studies have concluded that CSR provides the same stability in cadaveric specimens as PSR and is comparable in clinical outcomes. However, recent clinical studies reported a lower incidence of radiographic and symptomatic adjacent-segment degeneration with CSR. No biomechanical study to date has focused on how the adjacent-segment mobility of these two constructs compares. This study aimed to investigate adjacent-segment mobility of CSR and PSR fixation, with and without interbody support (lateral lumbar interbody fusion [LLIF] or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [TLIF]). METHODS A retroactive analysis was done using normalized range of motion (ROM) data at levels adjacent to single-level (L3–4) bilateral screw–rod fixation using pedicle or cortical screws, with and without LLIF or TLIF. Intact and instrumented specimens (n = 28, all L2–5) were tested using pure moment loads (7.5 Nm) in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Adjacent-segment ROM data were normalized to intact ROM data. Statistical comparisons of adjacent-segment normalized ROM between two of the groups (PSR followed by PSR+TLIF [n = 7] and CSR followed by CSR+TLIF [n = 7]) were performed using 2-way ANOVA with replication. Statistical comparisons among four of the groups (PSR+TLIF [n = 7], PSR+LLIF [n = 7], CSR+TLIF [n = 7], and CSR+LLIF [n = 7]) were made using 2-way ANOVA without replication. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS Proximal adjacent-segment normalized ROM was significantly larger with PSR than CSR during flexion-extension regardless of TLIF (p = 0.02), or with either TLIF or LLIF (p = 0.04). During lateral bending with TLIF, the distal adjacent-segment normalized ROM was significantly larger with PSR than CSR (p < 0.001). Moreover, regardless of the types of screw-rod fixations (CSR or PSR), TLIF had a significantly larger normalized ROM than LLIF in all directions at both proximal and distal adjacent segments (p ≤ 0.04). CONCLUSIONS The use of PSR versus CSR during single-level lumbar fusion can significantly affect mobility at the adjacent segment, regardless of the presence of TLIF or with either TLIF or LLIF. Moreover, the type of interbody support also had a significant effect on adjacent-segment mobility.

Download Full-text

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

Global Spine Journal ◽

10.1177/2192568219884265 ◽

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.

Download Full-text