3D-Printed Model in Preoperative Planning of Sciatic Nerve Decompression Because of Heterotopic Ossification: A Case Report.

CASE: A 31-year-old patient presented with an encapsulated sciatic nerve secondary to extensive hip heterotopic ossification (HO), which prevented visualization of a safe osteotomy site to avoid nerve damage. The 3D-printed model demonstrated an easily identifiable osseous reference point along the inferior aspect of the heterotopic mass, allowing for a vertical osteotomy to be safely performed. CONCLUSION: HO is associated with loss of normal anatomic topography. The current case report illustrates the use of a 3D-printed model to identify pertinent anatomic landmarks required for safe decompression of an encapsulated sciatic nerve within the anatomic region of the hip.

Comparison of 3D-printed titanium-alloy, standard titanium-alloy, and PEEK interbody spacers in an ovine model.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Osseointegration is a pivotal process in achieving a rigid fusion and ultimately a successful clinical outcome following interbody fusion surgery. Advancements in 3D printing technology permit commonly used titanium interbody spacers to be designed with unique architectures, such as a highly interconnected and specific porous structure that mimics the architecture of trabecular bone. Interbody implants with a microscale surface roughness and biomimetic porosity may improve bony ongrowth and ingrowth compared to traditional materials. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the osseointegration of lumbar interbody fusion devices composed of surgical-grade polyetheretherketone (PEEK), titanium-alloy (TAV), and 3D-printed porous, biomimetic TAV (3DP) using an in vivo ovine model. STUDY DESIGN: In Vivo Preclinical Animal Study METHODS: Eighteen sheep underwent two-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion randomized with either 3DP, PEEK, or TAV interbody spacers (n=6 levels for each spacer per time point). Postoperative time points were 6 and 12 weeks. Microcomputed tomography and histomorphometry were used to quantify bone volume (BV) within the spacers (ingrowth) and the surface bone apposition ratio (BAR) (ongrowth), respectively. RESULTS: The 3DP-treatment group demonstrated significantly higher BV than the PEEK and TAV groups at 6 weeks (77.3±44.1 mm3, 116.9±43.0 mm3, and 108.7±15.2 mm3, respectively) (p<.05). At 12 weeks, there were no BV differences between groups (p>.05). BV increased in all groups from the 6- to 12-week time points (p<.05). At both time points, the 3DP-treated group (6w: 23.6±10.9%; 12w: 36.5±10.9%) had significantly greater BAR than the PEEK (6w: 8.6±2.1%; 12w: 14.0±5.0%) and TAV (6w: 6.0±5.7%; 12w: 4.1±3.3%) groups (p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: 3DP interbody spacers facilitated greater total bony ingrowth at 6 weeks, and greater bony ongrowth postoperatively at both 6 and 12 weeks, in comparison to solid PEEK and TAV implants. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Based on these findings, the 3DP spacers may be a reasonable alternative to traditional PEEK and TAV spacers in various clinical applications of interbody fusion.

Biomechanical analysis of occipitocervical stabilization techniques: emphasis on integrity of osseous structures at the occipital implantation sites.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the current study was to quantify and compare the multidirectional flexibility properties of occipital anchor fixation with conventional methods of occipitocervical screw fixation using nondestructive and destructive investigative methods. METHODS: Fourteen cadaveric occipitocervical specimens (Oc-T2) were randomized to reconstruction with occipital anchors or an occipital plate and screws. Using a 6-degree-of-freedom spine simulator with moments of ± 2.0 Nm, initial multidirectional flexibility analysis of the intact and reconstructed conditions was performed followed by fatigue loading of 25,000 cycles of flexion-extension (x-axis, ± 2.0 Nm), 15,000 cycles of lateral bending (z-axis, ± 2.0 Nm), and 10,000 cycles of axial rotation (y-axis, ± 2.0 Nm). Fluoroscopic images of the implantation sites were obtained before and after fatigue testing and placed on an x-y coordinate system to quantify positional stability of the anchors and screws used for reconstruction and effect, if any, of the fatigue component. Destructive testing included an anterior flexural load to construct failure. Quantification of implant, occipitocervical, and atlantoaxial junction range of motion is reported as absolute values, and peak flexural failure moment in Newton-meters (Nm). RESULTS: Absolute value comparisons between the intact condition and 2 reconstruction groups demonstrated significant reductions in segmental flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation motion at the Oc-C1 and C1-2 junctions (p < 0.05). The average bone mineral density at the midline keel (1.422 g/cm3) was significantly higher compared with the lateral occipital region at 0.671 g/cm3 (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the occipital anchor and plate treatments in terms of angular rotation (degrees; p = 0.150) or x-axis displacement (mm; p = 0.572), but there was a statistically significant difference in y-axis displacement (p = 0.031) based on quantitative analysis of the pre- and postfatigue fluoroscopic images (p > 0.05). Under destructive anterior flexural loading, the occipital anchor group failed at 90 ± 31 Nm, and the occipital plate group failed at 79 ± 25 Nm (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both reconstructions reduced flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation at the occipitocervical and atlantoaxial junctions, as expected. Flexural load to failure did not differ significantly between the 2 treatment groups despite occipital anchors using a compression-fit mechanism to provide fixation in less dense bone. These data suggest that an occipital anchor technique serves as a biomechanically viable clinical alternative to occipital plate fixation.

How I do it: en-bloc subaxial cervical laminectomy using a high-speed drill with a footplate attachment.

BACKGROUND: Cervical laminectomy is a common strategy to decompress the spinal canal. METHODS: The anatomy of the cervical spine and surrounding critical structures as viewed from the posterior approach is described. The use of a high-speed drill with a footplate attachment to make laminar troughs with an en-bloc subaxial cervical laminectomy is described with a discussion on surgical technique and complication avoidance. CONCLUSION: This technique allows for a safe, comfortable, and rapid decompression of the cervical spine with minimal risk. For routine cases, this may potentially be more safe and cost-effective than using a cutting bur or bone scalpel attachment.

Comprehensive biomechanical analysis of three reconstruction techniques following total sacrectomy: an in vitro human cadaveric model.

OBJECTIVE Aggressive sacral tumors often require en bloc resection and lumbopelvic reconstruction. Instrumentation failure and pseudarthrosis remain a clinical concern to be addressed. The objective in this study was to compare the biomechanical stability of 3 distinct techniques for sacral reconstruction in vitro. METHODS In a human cadaveric model study, 8 intact human lumbopelvic specimens (L2-pelvis) were tested for flexion-extension range of motion (ROM), lateral bending, and axial rotation with a custom-designed 6-df spine simulator as well as axial compression stiffness with the MTS 858 Bionix Test System. Biomechanical testing followed this sequence: 1) intact spine; 2) sacrectomy (no testing); 3) Model 1 (L3-5 transpedicular instrumentation plus spinal rods anchored to iliac screws); 4) Model 2 (addition of transiliac rod); and 5) Model 3 (removal of transiliac rod; addition of 2 spinal rods and 2 S-2 screws). Range of motion was measured at L4-5, L5-S1/cross-link, L5-right ilium, and L5-left ilium. RESULTS Flexion-extension ROM of the intact specimen at L4-5 (6.34° ± 2.57°) was significantly greater than in Model 1 (1.54° ± 0.94°), Model 2 (1.51° ± 1.01°), and Model 3 (0.72° ± 0.62°) (p < 0.001). Flexion-extension at both the L5-right ilium (2.95° ± 1.27°) and the L5-left ilium (2.87° ± 1.40°) for Model 3 was significantly less than the other 3 cohorts at the same level (p = 0.005 and p = 0.012, respectively). Compared with the intact condition, all 3 reconstruction groups statistically significantly decreased lateral bending ROM at all measured points. Axial rotation ROM at L4-5 for Model 1 (2.01° ± 1.39°), Model 2 (2.00° ± 1.52°), and Model 3 (1.15° ± 0.80°) was significantly lower than the intact condition (5.02° ± 2.90°) (p < 0.001). Moreover, axial rotation for the intact condition and Model 3 at L5-right ilium (2.64° ± 1.36° and 2.93° ± 1.68°, respectively) and L5-left ilium (2.58° ± 1.43° and 2.93° ± 1.71°, respectively) was significantly lower than for Model 1 and Model 2 at L5-right ilium (5.14° ± 2.48° and 4.95° ± 2.45°, respectively) (p = 0.036) and L5-left ilium (5.19° ± 2.34° and 4.99° ± 2.31°) (p = 0.022). Last, results of the axial compression testing at all measured points were not statistically different among reconstructions. CONCLUSIONS The addition of a transverse bar in Model 2 offered no biomechanical advantage. Although the implementation of 4 iliac screws and 4 rods conferred a definitive kinematic advantage in Model 3, that model was associated with significantly restricted lumbopelvic ROM.

Biomechanical and anatomical considerations in lumbar spinous process fixation--an in vitro human cadaveric model.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although multiple mechanisms of device attachment to the spinous processes exist, there is a paucity of data regarding lumbar spinous process morphology and peak failure loads. PURPOSE: Using an in vitro human cadaveric spine model, the primary objective of the present study was to compare the peak load and mechanisms of lumbar spinous process failure with variation in spinous process hole location and pullout direction. A secondary objective was to provide an in-depth characterization of spinous process morphology. STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical and anatomical considerations in lumbar spinous process fixation using an in vitro human cadaveric model. METHODS: A total of 12 intact lumbar spines were used in the current investigation. The vertebral segments (L1-L5) were randomly assigned to one of five treatment groups with variation in spinous process hole placement and pullout direction: (1) central hole placement with superior pullout (n=10), (2) central hole placement with inferior pullout (n=10), (3) inferior hole placement with inferior pullout (n=10), (4) superior hole placement with superior pullout (n=10), and (5) intact spinous process with superior pullout (n=14). A 4-mm diameter pin was placed through the hole followed by pullout testing using a material testing system. As well, the bone mineral density (BMD) (g/cm(3)) was measured for each segment. Data were quantified in terms of anatomical dimensions (mm), peak failure loads (newtons [N]), and fracture mechanisms, with linear regression analysis to identify relationships between anatomical and biomechanical data. RESULTS: Based on anatomical comparisons, there were significant differences between the anteroposterior and cephalocaudal dimensions of the L5 spinous process versus L1-L4 (p<.05). Statistical analysis of peak load at failure of the four reconstruction treatments and intact condition demonstrated no significant differences between treatments (range, 350-500 N) (p>.05). However, a significant linear correlation was observed between peak failure load and anteroposterior and cephalocaudal dimensions (p<.05). Correlation between BMD and peak spinous processes failure load was approaching statistical significance (p=.08). 30 of 54 specimens failed via direct pullout (plow through), whereas 8 of 54 specimens demonstrated spinous process fracture. The remaining cases failed via plow through followed by fracture of the spinous process (16 of 54; 29%). CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated that variation in spinous process hole placement did not significantly influence failure load. However, there was a strong linear correlation between peak failure load and the anteroposterior and cephalocaudal anatomical dimensions. From a clinical standpoint, the findings of the present study indicate that attachment through the spinous process provides a viable alternative to attachment around the spinous processes. In addition, the anatomical dimensions of the lumbar spinous processes have a greater influence on biomechanical fixation than either hole location or BMD.