Range of motion after thoracolumbar corpectomy: evaluation of analogous constructs with a novel low-profile anterior dual-rod system and a traditional dual-rod system.

STUDY DESIGN: An in vitro biomechanical study. OBJECTIVES: To compare the biomechanical stability of traditional and low-profile thorocolumbar anterior instrumentation after a corpectomy with cross-connectors. Dual-rod anterior thoracolumbar lateral plates (ATLP) have been used clinically to stabilize the thorocolumbar spine. METHODS: The stability of a low-profile dual-rod system (LP DRS) and a traditional dual-rod system (DRS) was compared using a calf spine model. Two groups of seven specimens were tested intact and then in the following order: (1) ATLP with two cross-connectors and spacer; (2) ATLP with one cross-connector and spacer; (3) ATLP with spacer. Data were normalized to intact (100 %) and statistical analysis was used to determine between-group significances. RESULTS: Both constructs reduced motion compared to intact in flexion-extension and lateral bending. Axial rotation motion became unstable after the corpectomy and motion was greater than intact, even with two cross-connectors with both systems. Relative to their respective intact groups, LP DRS significantly reduced motion compared to analogous DRS in flexion-extension. The addition of cross-connectors reduced motion in all loading modes. CONCLUSIONS: The LP DRS provides 7.5 mm of reduced height with similar biomechanical performance. The reduced height may be beneficiary by reduced irritation and impingement on adjacent structures.

Does Lumbopelvic Fixation Add Stability? A Cadaveric Biomechanical Analysis of an Unstable Pelvic Fracture Model.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the role of lumbopelvic fixation (LPF) in the treatment of zone II sacral fractures with varying levels of sacral comminution combined with anterior pelvic ring (PR) instability. We also sought to determine the proximal extent of LPF necessary for adequate stabilization and the role of LPF in complex sacral fractures when only 1 transiliac-transsacral (TI-TS) screw is feasible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen L4 to pelvis fresh-frozen cadaveric specimens were tested intact in flexion-extension (FE) and axial rotation (AR) in a bilateral stance gliding hip model. Two comminution severities were simulated through the sacral foramen using an oscillating saw, with either a single vertical fracture (small gap, 1 mm) or 2 vertical fractures 10 mm apart with the intermediary bone removed (large gap). We assessed sacral fracture zone (SZ), PR, and total lumbopelvic (TL) stability during FE and AR. The following variables were tested: (1) presence of transverse cross-connector, (2) presence of anterior plate, (3) extent of LPF (L4 vs. L5), (4) fracture gap size (small vs. large), (5) number of TI-TS screws (1 vs. 2). RESULTS: The transverse cross-connector and anterior plate significantly increased PR stability during AR (P = 0.02 and P = 0.01, respectively). Increased sacral comminution significantly affected SZ stability during FE (P = 0.01). Two versus 1 TI-TS screw in a large-gap model significantly affected TL stability (P = 0.04) and trended toward increased SZ stabilization during FE (P = 0.08). Addition of LPF (L4 and L5) significantly improved SZ and TL stability during AR and FE (P < 0.05). LPF in combination with TI-TS screws resulted in the least amount of motion across all 3 zones (SZ, PR, and TL) compared with all other constructs in both small-gap and large-gap models. CONCLUSIONS: The role of LPF in the treatment of complex sacral fractures is supported, especially in the setting of sacral comminution. LPF with proximal fixation at L4 in a hybrid approach might be needed in highly comminuted cases and when only 1 TI-TS screw is feasible to obtain maximum biomechanical support across the fracture zone.

In vitro biomechanical study of pedicle screw pull-out strength based on different screw path preparation techniques.

BACKGROUND: Poor screw-to-bone fixation is a clinical problem that can lead to screw loosening. Under-tapping (UT) the pedicle screw has been evaluated biomechanically in the past. The objective of the study was to determine if pedicle preparation with a sequential tapping technique will alter the screw-to-bone fixation strength using a stress relaxation testing loading protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three thoracolumbar calf spines were instrumented with pedicle screws that were either probed, UT, standard-tapped (ST), or sequential tapped to prepare the pedicle screw track and a stress relaxation protocol was used to determine pull-out strength. The maximum torque required for pedicle screw insertion and pull-out strength was reported. A one-way ANOVA and Tukeys post-hoc test were used to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: The pedicle screw insertion torques for the probed, UT, ST and sequentially tapped (SQT) techniques were 5.09 (±1.08) Nm, 5.39 (±1.61) Nm, 2.93 (±0.43) Nm, and 3.54 (±0.67) Nm, respectively. There is a significant difference between probed compared to ST (P ≤ 0.05), as well as UT compared to both ST and SQT (P ≤ 0.05). The pull-out strength for pedicle screws for the probed, UT, ST and SQT techniques was 2443 (±782) N, 2353(±918) N, 2474 (±521) N, and 2146 (±582) N, respectively, with no significant difference (P ≥ 0.05) between techniques. CONCLUSIONS: The ST technique resulted in the highest pull-out strength while the SQT technique resulted in the lowest. However, there was no significant difference in the pull-out strength for the various preparation techniques and there was no correlation between insertion torque and pull-out strength. This suggests that other factors such as bone density may have a greater influence on pull-out strength.

Indirect decompression and vertebral body endplate strength after lateral interbody spacer impaction: cadaveric and foam-block models.

OBJECTIVE The lateral transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine is a well-defined procedure for the management of discogenic spinal pathology necessitating surgical intervention. Intervertebral device subsidence is a postoperative clinical risk that can lead to recurrence of symptomatic pathology and the need for surgical reintervention. The current study was designed to investigate static versus expandable lateral intervertebral spacers in indirect decompression for preserving vertebral body endplate strength. METHODS Using a cadaveric biomechanical study and a foam-block vertebral body model, researchers compared vertebral body endplate strength and distraction potential. Fourteen lumbar motion segments (7 L2-3 and 7 L4-5 specimens) were distributed evenly between static and expandable spacer groups. In each specimen discectomy was followed by trialing and spacer impaction. Motion segments were axially sectioned through the disc, and a metal stamp was used to apply a compressive load to superior and inferior vertebral bodies to quantify endplate strength. A paired, 2-sample for means t-test was performed to determine statistically significant differences between groups (p ≤ 0.05). A foam-block endplate model was used to control simulated disc tension when a spacer with 2- and 3-mm desired distraction was inserted. One-way ANOVA and a post hoc Student Newman-Keuls test were performed (p ≤ 0.05) to determine differences in distraction. RESULTS Both static and expandable spacers restored intact neural foramen and disc heights after device implantation (p > 0.05). Maximum peak loads at endplate failure for static and expandable spacers were 1764 N (± 966 N) and 2284 N (± 949 N), respectively (p ≤ 0.05). The expandable spacer consistently produced greater desired distraction than was created by the static spacer in the foam-block model (p ≤ 0.05). Distraction created by fully expanding the spacer was significantly greater than the predetermined goals of 2 mm and 3 mm (p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS The current investigation shows that increased trialing required for a static spacer may lead to additional iatrogenic endplate damage, resulting in less distraction and increased propensity for postoperative implant subsidence secondary to endplate disruption.

Biomechanical Analysis of a Novel Pedicle Screw Anchor Designed for the Osteoporotic Population.

OBJECTIVE: The biomechanical study was performed to investigate the effect of a novel pedicle screw anchor in increasing the pullout strength of pedicle screws. METHODS: Ten lumbar vertebral bodies with a weighted average T-score of -2.13 were used. Pedicle screws of 4.5 mm diameter and 25 mm length were inserted in to one pedicle randomly and matched with an anchor in the corresponding pedicle. Fatigue testing was performed by applying an axial load of ±200N to the screw tulip, along the axis of the rod, at a rate of 0.5 Hz for 1,000 cycles. After fatigue loading was completed, all screws underwent axial pullout testing at a rate of 0.1 mm/sec until failure. A paired two sample for means t-test was performed to determine a significant difference between the two groups (p ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: Following fatigue testing, the axial displacement at the 1,000 cycle point for the anchor and non-anchor group was 1.4 ± 0.7mm and 2.9 ± 1.2mm, respectively. The anchor group had significantly lower axial displacement compared to the non-anchor group (p ≤ 0.01). The group with the anchor reached an average maximum load of 702 ± 373N. The average yield load for the non-anchor group was 421 ± 293N. The anchor group yield load was significantly greater than the non-anchor group (p ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A novel anchor for standard pedicle screws resulted in significantly less axial movement during fatigue and a greater failure force compared a screw with no anchor. The anchor may provide a stronger bone-to-screw interface, than a non-anchor screw, without the complications of cement augmentation.

Additional sagittal correction can be obtained when using an expandable titanium interbody device in lumbar Smith-Peterson osteotomies: a biomechanical study.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Insertion of intervertebral fusion devices between consecutive Smith-Peterson osteotomies (SPOs) provides an anterior fulcrum during compression, which has been documented to improve achievable Cobb angle correction. Extension of these principles to an expandable device would theoretically provide greater surgical adjustment for flatback and scoliotic cases than a static cage. PURPOSE: To investigate whether an expandable titanium interbody device would produce greater sagittal correction than a static spacer when used during SPO procedures. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Cadaveric research was performed. PATIENT SAMPLE: Seven T10-S1 human specimens were used. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cobb angle changes and range of motion are the physiological measures. No self-report/functional measures were applicable. METHODS: Bilateral pedicle screws were placed (T11-L5) before Smith-Petersen osteotomy creation from L2 to L4. A transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion titanium expandable implant was placed in each disc space from L2-L3 to L4-L5, which is currently an off-label use of this implant. Initial placement simulated a static spacer, and then incremental device expansion was performed to obtain an intermediate and final height. Lateral fluoroscopic images were taken for Cobb angle evaluation between L2 and L5, and range of motion as observed during application of pure bending moments was captured using a six degree-of-freedom spine simulator. A one-way analysis of variance with Tukey post hoc analysis was performed to determine significant differences (p<.05) between surgical constructs (intact, SPO only, contracted, semiexpanded, and expanded). Study costs were allocated within the research budget of a medical device company, where some authors are salaried employees; another author has been a paid consultant elsewhere. These financial associations were not believed to bias the results. RESULTS: Change in Cobb angle from L2 to L5 was significantly greater with the interbody spacer compared with SPO alone. Despite an obvious increase in lordosis with expansion height, there were no significant differences between implant expansion states for the L2-L5 Cobb angle. All instrumented constructs were statistically equivalent in every mode of motion once rigid instrumentation was implemented, regardless of expansion state. CONCLUSIONS: The expandable interbody did have a slight effect on lordotic correction; each additional millimeter in height expansion yielded approximately 1° in correction across the three SPO levels. Even without significant differences between the states, an expandable device may allow the surgeon more control of lordotic correction within the operating room than a static spacer alone.

Comparison of fatigue strength of C2 pedicle screws, C2 pars screws, and a hybrid construct in C1-C2 fixation.

STUDY DESIGN: A biomechanical study comparing the fatigue strength of different types of C2 fixation in a C1-C2 construct. OBJECTIVE: To determine the pullout strength of a C2 pedicle screw and C2 pars screw after cyclical testing and differentiate differences in stiffness pre- and post-cyclical loading of 3 different C1-C2 fixations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Some surgeons use a short C2 pars screw in a C1-C2 construct, because it is less technically demanding and/or when the vertebral artery is high riding. Difference in construct stiffness between use of bilateral C2 pedicle screws, bilateral C2 pars screws, or a hybrid construct is unknown. METHODS: Biomechanical testing was performed on 15 specimens. A bicortical C1 lateral mass screw was used in combination with 1 of 3 methods of C2 fixation: (1) bilateral long C2 pedicle screws (LL), (2) bilateral 14-mm C2 pars screws (SS), and (3) unilateral long C2 pedicle screw with a contralateral 14-mm C2 pars screw (LS). Each construct was subject to 16,000 cycles to simulate the immediate postoperative period. Changes in motion in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation were calculated. This was followed by pullout testing. RESULTS: The ability to limit range of motion significantly decreased after cyclical testing in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation for all 3 groups. After loading, the LL and LS groups had less percentage of increase in motion in flexion-extension and lateral bending than the SS group. Overall, the average pullout strength of a pedicle screw was 92% stronger than a pars screw. CONCLUSION: C2 pedicle screws have twice the pullout strength of C2 pars screws after cyclical loading. In cases in which the anatomy limits placement of bilateral C2 pedicle screws, a construct using a unilateral C2 pedicle screw with a contralateral short pars screw is a viable option and compares favorably with a bilateral C2 pedicle screw construct. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

Biomechanical evaluation of S2 alar-iliac screws: effect of length and quad-cortical purchase as compared with iliac fixation.

STUDY DESIGN: A biomechanical study conducted on cadaveric specimens. OBJECTIVE: (1) To compare the biomechanical strength of the S2 alar-iliac (S2AI) screw to traditional iliac fixation and (2) to examine the effect of length and trajectory on the S2AI screw. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A recent technique to attain spinal fixation distal to S1 pedicle screws is the S2AI screw using either an open or a percutaneous approach with an altered S2 alar screw trajectory to obtain purchase in the ilium. A novel modification of the S2AI screw is placement with bicortical purchase in the ilium (quad-cortical screw). This may allow for a shorter-length screw with equivalent biomechanics. METHODS: Seven human cadaveric spines (L2-Pelvis) were fixed at L2 proximally and the pubis distally. Pedicle screws were placed from L3-S1 with S2AI screw lengths of 65-mm, 80-mm, or 90-mm iliac screws. S2AI screws were tested with and without quad-cortical purchase. Each specimen was tested on the 6 degrees of freedom spine simulator. A load control protocol with an unconstrained pure moment of 10 Nm was used in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation for a total of 3 load/unload cycles. The range of motion was normalized to the intact cadaveric spine (100%). RESULTS: All the instrumented constructs significantly reduced range of motion compared with the intact spine. The L3-S1 construct was statistically significantly less stable than all instrumented constructs in flexion-extension. There was statistically no significant difference between the S2AI screws of all lengths and the iliac screw constructs with offset connectors. CONCLUSION: S2AI screws are biomechanically as stable as the test constructs using iliac screws in all loading modes. Sixty-five-millimeter S2AI screws were biomechanically equivalent to 90-mm iliac screws and 80-mm S2AI screws. Quad-cortical purchase did not statistically significantly improve the biomechanical strength of S2AI screws. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.