Guidelines for cortical screw versus pedicle screw selection from a fatigued decompressive lumbar laminectomy model show similar stability and less bone mineral density dependency.

BACKGROUND: Traditional pedicle screws are the gold standard for lumbar spine fixation; however, cortical screws along the midline cortical bone trajectory may be advantageous when lumbar decompression is required. While biomechanic investigation of both techniques exists, cortical screw performance in a multi-level lumbar laminectomy and fusion model is unknown. Furthermore, longer-term viability of cortical screws following cyclic fatigue has not been investigated. METHODS: Fourteen human specimens (L1-S1) were divided into cortical and pedicle screw treatment groups. Motion was captured for the following conditions: intact, bilateral posterior fixation (L3-L5), fixation with laminectomy at L3-L5, fixation with laminectomy and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at L3-L5 both prior to, and following, simulated in vivo fatigue. Following fatigue, screw pullout force was collected and "effective shear stress" [pullout force/screw surface area] (N/mm2) was calculated; comparisons and correlations were performed. FINDINGS: In flexion-extension and lateral bending, all operative constructs significantly reduced motion compared to intact (P < 0.05), regardless of pedicle or cortical screws; only posterior fixation with and without laminectomy significantly reduced motion in axial rotation (P < 0.05). Pedicle screws significantly increased average pullout strength (944.2 N vs. 690.2 N, P < 0.05), but not the "effective shear stress" (1.01 N/mm2 vs. 1.1 N/mm2, P > 0.05). INTERPRETATION: In a posterior laminectomy and fusion model, cortical screws provided equivalent stability to pedicle screw fixation, yet had significantly lower screw pullout force. No differences in "effective shear stress" warrant further investigation of the effect of screw length/diameter in the aforementioned screw trajectories.

Biomechanical evaluation of traditional posterior versus anterior spondylolisthesis reduction in a cadaveric grade I slip model.

OBJECTIVEPosterior reduction with pedicle screws is often used for stabilization of unstable spondylolisthesis to directly reduce misalignment or protect against micromotion while fusion of the affected level occurs. Optimal treatment of spondylolisthesis combines consistent reduction with a reduced risk of construct failure. The authors compared the reduction achieved with a novel anterior integrated spacer with a built-in reduction mechanism (ISR) to the reduction achieved with pedicle screws alone, or in combination with an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) spacer, in a cadaveric grade I spondylolisthesis model.METHODSGrade I slip was modeled in 6 cadaveric L5-S1 segments by creation of a partial nucleotomy and facetectomy and application of dynamic cyclic loading. Following the creation of spondylolisthesis, reduction was performed under increasing axial loads, simulating muscle trunk forces between 50 and 157.5 lbs, in the following order: bilateral pedicle screws (BPS), BPS with an anterior spacer (BPS+S), and ISR. Percent reduction and reduction failure load-the axial load at which successful reduction (≥ 50% correction) was not achieved-were recorded along with the failure mechanism. Corrections were evaluated using lateral fluoroscopic images.RESULTSThe average loads at which BPS and BPS+S failed were 92.5 ± 6.1 and 94.2 ± 13.9 lbs, respectively. The ISR construct failed at a statistically higher load of 140.0 ± 27.1 lbs. Reduction at the largest axial load (157.5 lbs) by the ISR device was tested in 67% (4 of 6) of the specimens, was successful in 33% (2 of 6), and achieved 68.3 ± 37.4% of the available reduction. For the BPS and BPS+S constructs, the largest axial load was 105.0 lbs, with average reductions of 21.3 ± 0.0% (1 of 6) and 32.4 ± 5.7% (3 of 6) respectively.CONCLUSIONSWhile both posterior and anterior reduction devices maintained reduction under gravimetric loading, the reduction capacity of the novel anterior ISR device was more effective at greater loads than traditional pedicle screw techniques. Full correction was achieved with pedicle screws, with or without ALIF, but under significantly lower axial loads. The anterior ISR may prove useful when higher reduction forces are required; however, additional clinical studies will be needed to evaluate the effectiveness of anterior devices with built-in reduction mechanisms.

Biomechanical properties of posterior transpedicular-transdiscal oblique lumbar screw fixation with novel trapezoidal lateral interbody spacer: an in vitro human cadaveric model.

PURPOSE: To investigate biomechanical properties of posterior transpedicular-transdiscal (TPTD) oblique lumbar screw fixation whereby the screw traverses the inferior pedicle across the posterior disc space into the super-adjacent body and lateral trapezoidal interbody spacer. METHODS: Eight fresh-frozen osteoligamentous human cadaveric spines (L1-S1) were tested in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR), with pure bending moment set at 7.5 Nm. Surgical constructs included (1) intact spine; (2) bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) fixation at L3-L4; (3) TPTD screw fixation at L3-L4; (4) lateral L3-L4 discectomy; (5) TPTD screw fixation with lateral interbody spacer (TPTD+S); and (6) BPS fixation with lateral interbody spacer (BPS+S). Peak range of motion (ROM) at L3-L4 was normalized to intact for statistical analysis. RESULTS: In FE and LB, all posterior fixation with or without interbody spacers significantly reduced motion compared with intact and discectomy. BPS and BPS+S provided increased fixation in all planes of motion; significantly reducing FE and LB motion relative to TPTD (p = 0.005, p = 0.002 and p = 0.020, p = 0.004, respectively). In AR, only BPS significantly reduced normalized ROM to intact (p = 0.034); BPS+S provided greater fixation compared with TPTD+S (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Investigators found less stiffness with TPTD screw fixation than with BPS regardless of immediate stabilization with lateral discectomy and spacer. Clinical use should be decided by required biomechanical performance, difficulty of installation, and extent of paraspinal tissue disruption.