RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Sacropelvic fixation is frequently combined with thoracolumbar instrumentation for correcting spinal deformities. This study aimed to characterize sacropelvic fixation techniques using novel porous fusion/fixation implants (PFFI). METHODS: Three T10-pelvis finite element models were created: (1) pedicle screws and rods in T10-S1, PFFI bilaterally in S2 alar-iliac (S2AI) trajectory; (2) fixation in T10-S1, PFFI bilaterally in S2AI trajectory, triangular implants bilaterally above the PFFI in a sacro-alar-iliac trajectory (PFFI-IFSAI); and (3) fixation in T10-S1, PFFI bilaterally in S2AI trajectory, PFFI in sacro-alar-iliac trajectory stacked cephalad to those in S2AI position (2-PFFI). Models were loaded with pure moments of 7.5 Nm in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Outputs were compared against 2 baseline models: (1) pedicle screws and rods in T10-S1 (PED), and (2) pedicle screws and rods in T10-S1, and S2AI screws. RESULTS: PFFI and S2AI resulted in similar L5-S1 motion; adding another PFFI per side (2-PFFI) further reduced this motion. Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) motion was also similar between PFFI and S2AI; PFFI-IFSAI and 2-PFFI demonstrated a further reduction in SIJ motion. Additionally, PFFI reduced max stresses on S1 pedicle screws and on implants in the S2AI position. CONCLUSION: The study shows that supplementing a long construct with PFFI increases the stability of the L5-S1 and SIJ and reduces stresses on the S1 pedicle screws and implants in the S2AI position. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The findings suggest a reduced risk of pseudarthrosis at L5-S1 and screw breakage. Clinical studies may be performed to demonstrate applicability to patient outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Not applicable (basic science study).
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) transfers the load of the upper body to the lower extremities while allowing a variable physiological movement among individuals. The axis of rotation (AoR) and center of rotation (CoR) of the SIJ can be evaluated to analyze the stability of the SIJ, including when the sacrum is fixed. The purpose of this study was to determine how load intensity affects the SIJ for the intact model and to characterize how sacropelvic fixation performed with different techniques affects this joint. METHODS: Five T10-pelvis models were used: (1) intact model; (2) pedicle screws and rods in T10-S1; (3)pedicle screws and rods in T10-S1, and bilateral S2 alar-iliac screws (S2AI); (4) pedicle screws and rods in T10-S1, bilateral S2AI screws, and triangular implants inserted bilaterally in a sacral alar-iliac trajectory ; and (5) pedicle screws and rods in T10-S1, bilateral S2AI screws, and 2 bilateral triangular implants inserted in a lateral trajectory. Outputs of these models under flexion-extension were compared: AoR and CoR of the SIJ at incremental steps from 0 to 7.5 Nm for the intact model and AoR and CoR of the SIJ for the instrumented models at 7.5 Nm. RESULTS: The intact model was validated against an in vivo study by comparing range of motion and displacement of the sacrum. Increasing the load intensity for the intact model led to an increase of the rotation of the sacrum but did not change the CoR. Comparison among the instrumented models showed that sacropelvic fixation techniques reduced the rotation of the sacrum and stabilized the SIJ, in particular with triangular implants. CONCLUSION: The study outcomes suggest that increasing load intensity increases the rotation of the sacrum but does not influence the CoR, and use of sacropelvic fixation increases the stability of the SIJ, especially when triangular implants are employed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The choice of the instrumentation strategy for sacropelvic fixation affects the stability of the construct in terms of both range of motion and axes of rotation, with direct consequences on the risk of failure and mobilization. Clinical studies should be performed to confirm these biomechanical findings.