Biomechanical Problems Related to the Pedicle Screw System.

AIM: To assess biomechanical problems related to pedicle screw (PS) systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Functional spinal units (L3-4) of deer were evaluated using a 6-axis material testing machine. For the specimen models, we prepared an intact model, a damaged model, a PS model, and a crosslink model. We checked the range of motion (ROM) during bending and rotation tests. Eight directions were measured in the bending test: anterior, right-anterior, right, right-posterior, posterior, left-posterior, left, and left-anterior, and 2 directions were measured in the rotation test (right and left). RESULTS: ROMs of the PS model were smaller than those of the intact model in all directions. However, ROMs of the PS model in the rotation test were smaller than those of the damaged model and larger than those of the intact model. The stability of the crosslink model was better than that of the PS model during the bending test, but ROMs of the crosslink model were larger than those of the intact model during the rotation test. CONCLUSION: Excessive bending rigidity and rotational instability are the biomechanical problems related to PS systems. Based on these results, we speculate that one of the most significant causes of adjacent segment disease is excessive bending rigidity and one of the most important causes of instrumentation failure is rotational instability.

Biomechanical Stability of a Cross-Rod Connection with a Pedicle Screw System.

BACKGROUND Surgery with pedicle screw instrumentation does not provide sufficient torsional stability. This leads to pseudoarthrosis, loosening of the pedicle screws, and, ultimately, implant failure. MATERIAL AND METHODS Functional spinal units from 18 deer were evaluated using a 6-axis material testing machine. As specimen models, we prepared an intact model, a damaged model, a cross-rod model, and a cross-link model. We measured the range of motion (ROM) during bending and rotation tests. RESULTS The range of motions of cross-rod model were almost equal to those of cross-link model during the bending test. In the rotation test, the average ranges of motion of the intact, cross-rod, and cross-link models were 2.9°, 3.1°, and 3.9° during right rotation and 2.9°, 3.1°, and 4.1° during left rotation, respectively. The range of motions of the cross-rod model were significantly smaller than those of the cross-link model during the rotation test. The range of motions of the intact model were significantly smaller than those of the cross-link model during the rotation test, but there were no statistically significant differences between the range of motions of intact model and cross-rod model during the rotation test. CONCLUSIONS The stability of spinal fixation such as cross-rod model is equal to the fixation using the pedicle screw system during bending tests and equal to that of the intact spine during rotation tests.

Trajectory of instantaneous axis of rotation in fixed lumbar spine with instrumentation.

BACKGROUND: Several studies showed instantaneous axis of rotation (IAR) in the intact spine. However, there has been no report on the trajectory of the IAR of a damaged spine or that of a fixed spine with instrumentation. It is the aim of this study to investigate the trajectory of the IAR of the lumbar spine using the vertebra of deer. METHODS: Functional spinal units (L5-6) from five deer were evaluated with six-axis material testing machine. As specimen models, we prepared a normal model, a damaged model, and a pedicle screw (PS) model. We measured the IAR during bending in the coronal and sagittal planes and axial rotation. In the bending test, four directions were measured: anterior, posterior, right, and left. In the rotation test, two directions were measured: right and left. RESULTS: The IAR of the normal model during bending moved in the bending direction. The IAR of the damaged model during bending moved in the bending direction, but the magnitude of displacement was bigger compared to that of the normal model. In the PS model, the IAR during bending test hardly moved. During rotation test, the IAR of the normal model and PS model located in the spinal canal, but the IAR of the damaged model located in the posterior part of the vertebral body. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the IAR of damaged model was scattering and that of PS model was concentrating. This suggests that higher mechanical load applied to the dura tube and nerve roots in the damaged model and less mechanical load applied to that in the PS model.

Do the Position and Orientation of the Crosslink Influence the Stiffness of Spinal Instrumentation?

STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical study of double-level pedicle screw constructs with or without crosslinks (CL) in an unstable model. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to investigate the optimal position and orientation of the CL. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several reports have described biomechanical research on such CL, but no definite consensus has been reached regarding the effects. Very few studies have examined the position and orientation of the CL. The question of where and how the CL should be clinically set remains unanswered. METHODS: Ten cadaveric lumbar spines (L3-L5) of boars were used and 7 models were prepared by the sequential damage and spinal instrumentation of each specimen. Bending stiffness was measured in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation for each model using 6-axis material tester under torque of 0 to ±3 N m. Results for each configuration were compared using analysis of variance and the Turkey-Kramer test. RESULTS: In flexion, extension, and lateral bending, 7 models showed similar stiffness with no significant differences. In axial rotation, stiffness increased significantly (P<0.05) in the cephalic, central, caudal, and oblique CL models in comparison with that of the no CL model, and stiffness of the horizontal 2 CL and oblique 2 CL models was significantly higher than that of cephalic, central, caudal, and oblique CL models (P<0.05). However, no significant differences in stiffness were seen between cephalic, central, and caudal CL models, between the central and oblique CL models, or between the horizontal and oblique 2 CL models. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant use of CLs significantly increased axial rotational stiffness, even though stiffness in flexion, extension, and lateral bending was not increased. In addition, stiffness in axial rotation significantly improved with the use of 2 CLs instead of a single CL, and stiffness was unchanged by position and orientation of CL.

Biomechanical study of rotational micromovement of the pedicle screw.

BACKGROUND: In regard to the fixation using a pedicle screw (PS) and rod system, the mechanism from the onset of the clear zone up to the development of loosening of the pedicle screw is not completely clarified. The purpose of this study is to determine the cause of the pedicle screw loosening by performing a biomechanical study with three-dimensional movie analysis. METHODS: Ten PS fixation model of the lumbar spines (L3-4) of boar cadavers were used. The rotational angles of the L3 and L4 vertebral body and the screw at the time of applying a ±5 Nm load in the left anterior and right posterior flexion directions respectively were calculated based on those at the time of applying no load. The absolute value of the difference in the rotational angles between each vertebral body with left anterior flexion and right posterior flexion and the inserted screws was defined as rotational micromovement. RESULTS: In both the left anterior and right posterior flexion directions, there were significant differences (p < 0.05) in the rotational angles between the screw and the vertebral body for both the L3 and L4 vertebral bodies. CONCLUSION: Our biomechanical results showed that rotational micromovement occurred between the PS and the vertebral body, and repeated rotational micromovement might cause loosening of the screw or pullout of PS fixation.

A biomechanical comparison between cortical bone trajectory fixation and pedicle screw fixation.

PURPOSE: There have been several reports on the pullout strength of cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws, but only one study has reviewed the stability of functional spine units using the CBT method. The purpose of this study was to compare vertebral stability after CBT fixation with that after pedicle screw (PS) fixation. METHODS: In this study, 20 lumbar spine (L5-6) specimens were assigned to two groups: the CBT model group that underwent CBT screw fixation (n = 10) and the PS model group that underwent pedicle screw fixation (n = 10). Using a six-axis material testing machine, bend and rotation tests were conducted on each model. The angular displacement from the time of no load to the time of maximum torque was defined as range of motion (ROM), and then, the mean ROM in the bend and rotation tests and the mean rate of relative change of ROM in both the bend and rotation tests were compared between the CBT and PS groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the CBT and PS groups with regard to the mean ROMs and the mean rate of relative change of ROMs in both the bend and rotation tests. CONCLUSION: Intervertebral stability after CBT fixation was similar to that after PS fixation.

Biomechanical effects of pedicle screw fixation on adjacent segments.

Various biomechanical investigations have attempted to clarify the aetiology of adjacent segment disease (ASD). However, no biomechanical study has examined in detail the deformation behaviour of the adjacent segments when both pure torque and an angular displacement load are applied to the vertebrae along multiple segments. The purpose of this study is to investigate the biomechanical effects of pedicle screw fixation on adjacent segments. Ten cadaveric lumbar spines (L2-L5) of boars were used. Control and fusion models were prepared by disc damage and pedicle screw fixation of each specimen, and then, bending and rotation tests were performed using a six-axis material tester. In the biomechanical tests regulated by an angular displacement load, the range of motion (ROM) of the cranial and caudal adjacent segments in antero-posterior flexion and lateral bending was increased by about 20 % (p < 0.05), and the maximal torque in the fusion model was about threefold (p < 0.05) that in the control model. And in axial rotation, the ROM of cranial and caudal adjacent segments was increased by about 100 % (p < 0.001), and the maximal torque was about sixfold (p < 0.01) that in the control model. The ROM of adjacent segments was significantly increased after pedicle screw fixation as assessed by biomechanical tests regulated by an angular displacement load, but not in those regulated by torque. We present the results of biomechanical tests regulated by torque and angular displacement and show that the maximum torque of the fusion model was larger than that of the control model in the biomechanical test regulated by an angular displacement load, suggesting that mechanical stress on the segments adjacent to the fused segment is large. We think that ASD arises after spinal fusion surgery as a mechanism to compensate for the ROM lost due to excessive fusion by pedicle screw fixation, so that a large torque may be applied to adjacent segments within a physiologically possible range, and it might gradually lead to a degenerative intervertebral disc or progression of spondylolisthesis in the adjacent segments.