Lumbar Intervertebral Spacer With Cement Augmentation of Endplates and Integrated Screws as a Fixation Device in an Osteoporotic Model: An In Vitro Kinematic and Load-to-Failure Study.

BACKGROUND: Integrated lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) devices have been shown to successfully stabilize the spine and avoid complications related to posterior fixation. However, LLIF has increased subsidence risk in osteoporotic patients. Cement augmentation through cannulated pedicle screws enhances pedicle fixation and cage-endplate interface yet involves a posterior approach. Lateral application of cement with integrated LLIF fixation has been introduced and requires characterization. The present study set out to evaluate kinematic and load-to-failure properties of a novel cement augmentation technique with an integrated LLIF device, alone and with unilateral pedicle fixation, compared with bilateral pedicle screws and nonintegrated LLIF (BPS + S). METHODS: Twelve specimens (L3-S1) underwent discectomy at L4-L5. Specimens were separated into 3 groups: (1) BPS + S; (2) polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) augmentation, integrated LLIF, and unilateral pedicle screws (PMMA + UPS + iS); and (3) PMMA and integrated LLIF (PMMA + iSA) without posterior fixation. Flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation were applied. A compressive load was applied to L4-L5 segments until failure. An analysis was performed (P < .05). RESULTS: Operative constructs significantly reduced motion relative to intact specimens in all motion planes (P < .05). BPS + S provided the most stability, reducing motion by 71.6%-86.4%, followed by PMMA + UPS + iS (68.1%-79.4%) and PMMA + iSA (62.9%-81.9%); no significant differences were found (P > .05). PMMA + UPS + iS provided the greatest resistance to failure (2290 N), followed by PMMA + iSA (1970 N) and BPS + S (1390 N); no significant differences were observed (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Cement augmentation of vertebral endplates via the lateral approach with integrated LLIF moderately improved cage-endplate strength compared to BPS + S in an osteoporotic model; unilateral pedicle fixation further improved failure load. Reconstruction before and after application of unilateral pedicle screws and rods was biomechanically equivalent to anteroposterior reconstruction. Overall, initial results suggest that integrated LLIF with cement augmentation may be a viable alternative in the presence of osteoporosis.

Comprehensive Evaluation of Accessory Rod Position, Rod Material and Diameter, Use of Cross-connectors, and Anterior Column Support in a Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy Model: Part I: Effects on Apical Rod Strain: An In Vitro and In Silico Biomechanical Study.

STUDY DESIGN: In silico finite element study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of six construct factors on apical rod strain in an in silico pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) model: traditional inline and alternative Ames-Deviren-Gupta (ADG) multi-rod techniques, number of accessory rods (three- vs. four-rod), rod material (cobalt-chrome [CoCr] or stainless steel [SS] vs. titanium [Ti]), rod diameter (5.5 vs. 6.35 mm), and use of cross-connectors (CC), or anterior column support (ACS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Rod fracture following lumbar PSO is frequently reported. Clinicians may modulate reconstructs with multiple rods, rod position, rod material and diameter, and with CC or ACS to reduce mechanical demand or rod contouring. A comprehensive evaluation of these features on rod strain is lacking. METHODS: A finite element model (T12-S1) with intervertebral discs and ligaments was created and validated with cadaveric motion data. Apical rod strain of primary and accessory rods was collected for 96 constructs across all six construct factors, and normalized to the Ti two-rod control. RESULTS: Regardless of construct features, CoCr and SS material reduced strain across all rods by 49.1% and 38.1%, respectively; increasing rod diameter from 5.5 mm to 6.35 mm rods reduced strain by 32.0%. Use of CC or lumbosacral ACS minimally affected apical rod strain (<2% difference from constructs without CC or ACS). Compared to the ADG technique, traditional inline reconstruction reduced primary rod strain by 32.2%; however, ADG primary rod required 14.2° less rod contouring. The inline technique produced asymmetrical loading between left and right rods, only when three rods were used. CONCLUSION: The number of rods and position of accessory rods affected strain distribution on posterior fixation. Increasing rod diameter and using CoCr rods was most effective in reducing rod strain. Neither CC nor lumbosacral ACS affected apical rod strain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

Comprehensive In Silico Evaluation of Accessory Rod Position, Rod Material and Diameter, Use of Cross-connectors, and Anterior Column Support in a Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy Model: Part II: Effects on Lumbosacral Rod and Screw Strain.

STUDY DESIGN: In silico finite element study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate effects of six construct factors on rod and screw strain at the lumbosacral junction in an in silico pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) model: traditional inline and alternative Ames-Deviren-Gupta (ADG) multi-rod techniques, number of accessory rods (three-rod vs. four-rod), rod material (cobalt-chrome [CoCr] or stainless steel [SS] vs. titanium [Ti]), rod diameter (5.5 vs. 6.35 mm), and use of cross-connectors (CC), or anterior column support (ACS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Implant failure and pseudoarthrosis at the lumbosacral junction following PSO are frequently reported. Clinicians may modulate reconstructs with multiple rods, rod position, rod material, and diameter, and with CC or ACS to reduce mechanical demand. An evaluation of these features' effects on rod and screw strains is lacking. METHODS: A finite element model (T12-S1) with intervertebral discs and ligaments was created and validated with cadaveric motion data. Lumbosacral rod and screw strain data were collected for 96 constructs across all six construct factors and normalized to the Ti 2-Rod control. RESULTS: The inline technique resulted in 12.5% to 51.3% more rod strain and decreased screw strain (88.3% to 95%) compared to ADG at the lumbosacral junction. An asymmetrical strain distribution was observed in the three-rod inline technique in comparison to four-rod, which was more evenly distributed. Regardless of construct features, rod strain was significantly decreased by rod material (CoCr > SS > Ti), and increasing rod diameter from 5.5 mm to 6.35 mm reduced strain by 9.9% to 22.1%. ACS resulted in significant reduction of rod (37.8%-59.8%) and screw strains (23.2%-65.8%). CONCLUSION: Increasing rod diameter, using CoCr rods, and ACS were the most effective methods in reducing rod strain at the lumbosacral junction. The inline technique decreased screw strain and increased rod strain compared to ADG. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.