Biomechanical evaluation of interbody fixation with secondary augmentation: lateral lumbar interbody fusion versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

BACKGROUND: Many approaches to the lumbar spine have been developed for interbody fusion. The biomechanical profile of each interbody fusion device is determined by the anatomical approach and the type of supplemental internal fixation. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) was developed as a minimally invasive technique for introducing hardware with higher profiles and wider widths, compared with that for the posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approach. However, the biomechanics of the interbody fusion construct used in the LLIF approach have not been rigorously evaluated, especially in the presence of secondary augmentation. METHODS: Spinal stability of 21 cadaveric lumbar specimens was compared using standard nondestructive flexibility studies [mean range of motion (ROM), lax zone (LZ), stiff zone (SZ) in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation]. Non-paired comparisons were made among four conditions: (I) intact; (II) with unilateral interbody + bilateral pedicle screws (BPS) using the LLIF approach (referred to as the LLIF construct); (III) with bilateral interbody + BPS using the PLIF approach (referred to as the PLIF construct); and (IV) with no lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) + BPS (referred to as the no-LIF construct). RESULTS: With bilateral pedicle screw-rod fixation, stability was equivalent between PLIF and LLIF constructs in lateral bending and flexion-extension. PLIF and LLIF constructs had similar biomechanical profiles, with a trend toward less ROM in axial rotation for the LLIF construct. CONCLUSIONS: LLIF and PLIF constructs had similar stabilizing effects.

Biomechanical Stability Afforded by Unilateral Versus Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation with and without Interbody Support Using Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the stability of fusion constructs with unilateral pedicle screw (UPS) or bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) fixation with and without an interbody implant using the lateral lumbar interbody (LLIF) approach. METHODS: Standard nondestructive flexibility tests were performed on 13 cadaveric lumbar specimens to assess spinal stability of intact specimens and 5 configurations of posterior and interbody instrumentation. Spinal stability was determined as mean range of motion in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Nonpaired comparisons were made for these 6 conditions: 1) intact; 2) unilateral interbody via the LLIF approach (LLIF construct); 3) unilateral interbody + unilateral pedicle screws (UPS) via the LLIF approach (LLIF + UPS); 4) unilateral interbody + bilateral pedicle screws (BPS) using the LLIF approach (LLIF+BPS); 5) UPS alone; and 6) BPS alone. RESULTS: UPS and BPS, with and without interbody support, significantly reduced range of motion during the majority of directions of loading. BPS alone provided greater stability than UPS alone and LLIF alone in all directions of motion except axial rotation. With interbody support, there was no significant difference in stability between BPS and UPS across all movement directions. CONCLUSIONS: These biomechanical results suggest that fixation in the lumbar spine with an interbody support using an LLIF approach with UPS is a promising alternative to BPS. Although BPS provides greater immediate stability compared with UPS, in the presence of a lateral interbody implant, UPS and BPS provide equivalent stability. In addition, LLIF does not appear to contribute significantly to immediate stability when BPS is used.

Biomechanical evaluation of lateral lumbar interbody fusion with secondary augmentation.

OBJECTIVE Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has emerged as a popular method for lumbar fusion. In this study the authors aimed to quantify the biomechanical stability of an interbody implant inserted using the LLIF approach with and without various supplemental fixation methods, including an interspinous plate (IP). METHODS Seven human cadaveric L2-5 specimens were tested intact and in 6 instrumented conditions. The interbody implant was intended to be used with supplemental fixation. In this study, however, the interbody was also tested without supplemental fixation for a relative comparison of these conditions. The instrumented conditions were as follows: 1) interbody implant without supplemental fixation (LLIF construct); and interbody implant with supplemental fixation performed using 2) unilateral pedicle screws (UPS) and rod (LLIF + UPS construct); 3) bilateral pedicle screws (BPS) and rods (LLIF + BPS construct); 4) lateral screws and lateral plate (LP) (LLIF + LP construct); 5) interbody LP and IP (LLIF + LP + IP construct); and 6) IP (LLIF + IP construct). Nondestructive, nonconstraining torque (7.5 Nm maximum) induced flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, whereas 3D specimen range of motion (ROM) was determined optoelectronically. RESULTS The LLIF construct reduced ROM by 67% in flexion, 52% in extension, 51% in lateral bending, and 44% in axial rotation relative to intact specimens (p < 0.001). Adding BPS to the LLIF construct caused ROM to decrease by 91% in flexion, 82% in extension and lateral bending, and 74% in axial rotation compared with intact specimens (p < 0.001), providing the greatest stability among the constructs. Adding UPS to the LLIF construct imparted approximately one-half the stability provided by LLIF + BPS constructs, demonstrating significantly smaller ROM than the LLIF construct in all directions (flexion, p = 0.037; extension, p < 0.001; lateral bending, p = 0.012) except axial rotation (p = 0.07). Compared with the LLIF construct, the LLIF + LP had a significant reduction in lateral bending (p = 0.012), a moderate reduction in axial rotation (p = 0.18), and almost no benefit to stability in flexion-extension (p = 0.86). The LLIF + LP + IP construct provided stability comparable to that of the LLIF + BPS. The LLIF + IP construct provided a significant decrease in ROM compared with that of the LLIF construct alone in flexion and extension (p = 0.002), but not in lateral bending (p = 0.80) and axial rotation (p = 0.24). No significant difference was seen in flexion, extension, or axial rotation between LLIF + BPS and LLIF + IP constructs. CONCLUSIONS The LLIF construct that was tested significantly decreased ROM in all directions of loading, which indicated a measure of inherent stability. The LP significantly improved the stability of the LLIF construct in lateral bending only. Adding an IP device to the LLIF construct significantly improves stability in sagittal plane rotation. The LLIF + LP + IP construct demonstrated stability comparable to that of the gold standard 360° fixation (LLIF + BPS).

Biomechanics of posterior instrumentation in L1-L3 lateral interbody fusion: Pedicle screw rod construct vs. transfacet pedicle screws.

BACKGROUND: The use of pedicle screws is the gold standard for supplemental posterior fixation in lateral interbody fusion. Information about the performance of transfacet pedicle screws compared to standard pedicle screws and rods in the upper lumbar spine with or without a lateral interbody fusion device in place is limited. METHODS: Fifteen fresh frozen human cadaveric lumbar spine segments (T12-L4) were studied using standard pure moment flexibility tests. Specimens were divided into two groups to receive either bilateral transfacet pedicle screws (n=8) or bilateral pedicle screws (n=14). Stability of each motion segment (L1-L2 and L2-L3) was evaluated intact, with posterior instrumentation with an intact disc, with posterior instrumentation and a lateral interbody fusion device in place, and following cyclic loading with the interbody device and posterior instrumentation still in place. Both raw values of motion (range of motion, lax zone and stiff zone) and normalized mobility (ratios to intact) were analyzed for each case. FINDINGS: In terms of immediate stability, transfacet pedicle screws performed equivalent to similarly sized pedicle screws, both with intact disc and with lateral interbody fusion device in all directions of loading. Stability following cyclic loading decreased significantly during lateral bending and axial rotation. INTERPRETATION: Posterior fixation with transfacet pedicle screws provides equivalent immediate stability to similarly sized pedicle screws. However, in the presence of a lateral interbody fusion device, pedicle screws seem to resist loosening more and may be a better option for fusion in the upper lumbar spine.

Stability of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the setting of retained facets and posterior fixation using transfacet or standard pedicle screws.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) technique supplements posterior instrumented lumbar spine fusion and has been tested with different types of screw fixation for stabilization. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion is usually placed through a unilateral foraminal approach after unilateral facetectomy, although extraforaminal entry allows the facet to be spared. PURPOSE: To characterize the biomechanics of L4-L5 lumbar motion segments instrumented with bilateral transfacet pedicle screw (TFPS) fixation versus bilateral pedicle screw-rod (PSR) fixation in the setting of intact facets and native disc or after discectomy and extraforaminal placement of a TLIF technology graft. STUDY DESIGN: Human cadaveric lumbar spine segments were biomechanically tested in vitro to provide a nonpaired comparison of four configurations of posterior and interbody instrumentation. METHODS: Fourteen human cadaveric spine specimens (T12-S1) underwent standard pure moment flexibility tests with intact L4-L5 disc and facets. Seven were studied with intact discs, after TFPS fixation, and then with TLIF and TFPS fixation. The others were studied with intact discs, after PSR fixation, and then combined with extraforaminally placed TLIF. Loads were applied about anatomic axes to induce flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Three-dimensional specimen motion in response to applied loads during flexibility tests was determined. A nonpaired comparison of the four configurations of posterior and interbody instrumentation was made. RESULTS: Transfacet pedicle screw and PSR, with or without TLIF, significantly reduced range of motion during all directions of loading. Transfacet pedicle screw provided greater stability than PSR in all directions of motion except lateral bending. In flexion, TFPS was more stable than PSR (p=.042). A TLIF device provided less stability than the intact disc in constructs with TFPS and PSR. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that fixation at L4-L5 with TFPS is a promising alternative to PSR, with or without TLIF. A TLIF device was less stable than the native disc with both methods of instrumentation presumably because of a fulcrum effect from a relatively small footplate. Additional interbody support may be considered for improved biomechanics with TLIF.

Biomechanical assessment of anchored cervical interbody cages: comparison of 2-screw and 4-screw designs.

BACKGROUND: A new anchored cervical interbody polyetheretherketone spacer was devised that uses only 2 integrated variable-angle screws diagonally into the adjacent vertebral bodies instead of the established device that uses 4 diagonal fixed-angle screws. OBJECTIVE: To compare in vitro the stability provided by the new 2-screw interbody spacer with that of the 4-screw spacer and a 4-screw anterior plate plus independent polyetheretherketone spacer. METHODS: Three groups of cadaveric specimens were tested with 2-screw anchored cage (n = 8), 4-screw anchored cage (n = 8), and standard plate/cage (n = 16). Pure moments (1.5 Nm) were applied to induce flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation while measuring 3-D motion optoelectronically. RESULTS: In all 3 groups, the mean range of motion (ROM) and lax zone were significantly reduced relative to the intact spine after discectomy and fixation. The 2-screw anchored cage allowed significantly greater ROM (P < .05) than the standard plate during flexion, extension, and axial rotation and allowed significantly greater ROM than the 4-screw cage during extension and axial rotation. The 4-screw anchored cage did not allow significantly different ROM or lax zone than the standard plate during any loading mode. CONCLUSION: The 2-screw variable-angle anchored cage significantly reduces ROM relative to the intact spine. Greater stability can be achieved, especially during extension and axial rotation, by using the 4-screw cage or standard plate plus cage.

Dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery: incidence and risk factors.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate risk factors for the development of dysphagia after anterior cervical surgery. METHODS: The records of 249 patients who underwent anterior cervical surgery were reviewed. The presence and severity of dysphagia were assessed with the Dysphagia Disability Index 6 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Age; sex; ethnicity; cigarette smoking; previous cervical surgeries; reoperation for same pathology; type of procedure, incision, and instrumentation; number and levels involved; side of procedure, length of surgery; and use of postoperative bracing were analyzed. RESULTS: During the first 6 months after surgery, 27 (10.8%) patients developed dysphagia. From these patients the presence of dysphagia at 6 weeks and at 3 and 6 months was 88.8%, 29.6%, and 7.4%, respectively. By 12 months, dysphagia had resolved in all cases. The mean age of patients with dysphagia was 55 years (SD 12.98) and 50 years (SD 12.07) in patients without dysphagia (P = 0.05). Dysphagic patients had an average of 2.2 (SD 1.15) levels operated compared with 1.84 (SD 0.950) in nondysphagic patients (P = 0.05). Patients who developed dysphagia were most often treated at C4-5 (67%) and C5-6 (81%: P < 0.001). Although mean operative time was slightly longer in patients with dysphagia (186 minutes) compared with those without (169 minutes), the difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: In our patients, the incidence of dysphagia was low, and it had completely resolved at 12 months in all cases. Risk factors for dysphagia were multilevel procedures, involvement of C4-5 and C5-6, and age.

The NAC domain-containing protein, GmNAC6, is a downstream component of the ER stress- and osmotic stress-induced NRP-mediated cell-death signaling pathway.

BACKGROUND: The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is a major signaling organelle, which integrates a variety of responses against physiological stresses. In plants, one such stress-integrating response is the N-rich protein (NRP)-mediated cell death signaling pathway, which is synergistically activated by combined ER stress and osmotic stress signals. Despite the potential of this integrated signaling to protect plant cells against different stress conditions, mechanistic knowledge of the pathway is lacking, and downstream components have yet to be identified. RESULTS: In the present investigation, we discovered an NAC domain-containing protein from soybean, GmNAC6 (Glycine max NAC6), to be a downstream component of the integrated pathway. Similar to NRP-A and NRP-B, GmNAC6 is induced by ER stress and osmotic stress individually, but requires both signals for full activation. Transient expression of GmNAC6 promoted cell death and hypersensitive-like responses in planta. GmNAC6 and NRPs also share overlapping responses to biotic signals, but the induction of NRPs peaked before the increased accumulation of GmNAC6 transcripts. Consistent with the delayed kinetics of GmNAC6 induction, increased levels of NRP-A and NRP-B transcripts induced promoter activation and the expression of the GmNAC6 gene. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, our results biochemically link GmNAC6 to the ER stress- and osmotic stress-integrating cell death response and show that GmNAC6 may act downstream of the NRPs.