Thermal Damage in Orthopaedics.

There are numerous potential sources of thermal damage encountered in orthopaedic surgery. An understanding of the preclinical mechanisms of thermal damage in tissues is necessary to minimize iatrogenic injuries and use these mechanisms therapeutically. Heat generation is a phenomenon that can be used to a surgeon's benefit, most commonly for hemostasis and local control of tumors. It is simultaneously one of the most dangerous by-products of orthopaedic techniques as a result of burring, drilling, cementation, and electrocautery and can severely damage tissues if used improperly. Similarly, cooling can be used to a surgeon's advantage in some orthopaedic subspecialties, but the potential for harm to tissues is also great. Understanding the potential of a given technique to rapidly alter local temperature-and the range of temperatures tolerated by a given tissue-is imperative to harness the power of heat and cold. In all subspecialties of orthopaedic surgery, thermal damage is a relevant topic that represents a direct connection between preclinical and clinical practice.

Interspinous-Interbody Fusion via a Strictly Lateral Surgical Approach: A Biomechanical Stabilization Comparison to Constructs Requiring Both Lateral and Posterior Approaches.

Objective Lumbar fusion performed through lateral approaches is becoming more common. The interbody devices are generally supported by supplemental posterior fixation implanted through a posterior approach, potentially requiring a second incision and intraoperative repositioning of the patient. A minimally invasive lateral interspinous fixation device may eliminate the need for intraoperative repositioning and avoid disruption of the supraspinous ligament. The objective of this in vitrobiomechanical study was to investigate segmental multidirectional stability and maintenance of foraminal distraction of a lateral interspinous fixation device compared to commonly used pedicle screw and facet screw posterior fixation constructs when combined with lumbar interbody cages. Methods Six human cadaver lumbar spine specimens were subjected to nondestructive quasistatic loading in the following states: (1) intact; (2) interspinous fixation device alone and (3) with lateral interbody cage; (4) lateral lumbar interbody cage with bilateral pedicle screws; (5) lateral lumbar interbody cage with unilateral pedicle screws; and (6) lateral lumbar interbody cage with facet screws. Multidirectional pure bending in 1.5 Nm increments to 7.5 Nm, and 7.5 Nm flexion-extension bending with a 700 N compressive follower load were performed separately with optoelectronic segmental motion measurement. Relative angular motions of L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5 functional spinal units were evaluated, and the mean instantaneous axis of rotation in the sagittal plane was calculated for the index level. Foraminal height was assessed during combined flexion-extension and compression loading for each test construct. Results All implant configurations significantly restricted flexion-extension motion compared with intact (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found in flexion-extension when comparing the different posterior implants combined with lateral lumbar interbody cages. All posterior fixation devices provided comparable neuroforaminal distraction and maintained distraction during flexion and extension. Conclusions When combinedwith lateral lumbar interbody cages, the minimally invasive lateral interspinous fixation device effectively stabilized the spine and maintained neuroforaminal distraction comparable to pedicle screw constructs or facet screws. These results suggest the lateral interspinous fixation device may provide a favorable alternative to other posterior systems that require patient repositioning during surgery and involve a greater disruption of native tissues.

An Analysis of a Decade of Lumbar Interbody Cage Failures in the United States: A MAUDE Database Study.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective case series. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the rates of lumbar interbody cage failures based on their material and manufacturer. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Perioperative lumbar interbody cage malfunctions are underreported events in the spine literature and may result in complications. Although the Food and Drug Administration ensures the safety of these devices under physiological conditions after implantation, these devices may experience nonphysiological conditions during implantation, which may be overlooked. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MAUDE database was examined for reports of lumbar cage device malfunctions from 2012 to 2021. Each report was categorized based on failure type and implant design. A market analysis was performed by dividing the total number of failures per year for each manufacturer by their approximate yearly revenue from spinal implants in the United States. Outlier analysis was performed to generate a threshold value above which failure rates were defined as greater than the normal index. RESULTS: Overall, 1875 lumbar cage malfunctions were identified. Of these, 1230 (65.6%) were cage breakages, 257 (13.7%) were instrument malfunctions, 177 (9.4%) were cage migrations, 143 (7.6%) were assembly failures, 70 (4.5%) were screw-related failures, and 21 (1.1%) were cage collapses. Of the breakages, 923 (74.9%) occurred during insertion or impaction and 97 entries detailed a medical complication or a retained foreign body. Of the migrations, 155 (88.6%) were identified postoperatively, of which 73 (47.1%) detailed complications and 52 (33.5%) required a revision procedure. Market analysis demonstrated that Medtronic, Zimmer Biomet, Stryker, Seaspine, and K2M exceeded the calculated threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar cages with polyether ether ketone core material failed more frequently by breakage, whereas titanium surface cages failed more frequently by migration. Failure rates varied depending on the manufacturer. Most cage breakages identified in the present study occurred intraoperatively during implantation. These findings call for a more detailed Food and Drug Administration evaluation of these intraoperative malfunctions before commercial approval. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.

A Cadaver-Based Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel Posterior Approach to Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: Analysis of the Fixation and Center of the Instantaneous Axis of Rotation.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the stabilizing effect of a posterior joint fixation technique using a novel cortical allograft implant in unilateral and bilateral fixation constructs. We hypothesize that fixation would reduce the joint's range of motion during flexion-extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending loads. We also hypothesize that fixation would shift the center of the instantaneous axis of rotation during the predominant flexion-extension motions towards the implant's location, and that this shift would be correlated with the reduction in flexion-extension range of motion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six cadaveric sacroiliac joint specimens were tested under intact, unilateral fixation, and bilateral fixation conditions. The total range of motion (ROM) of the sacroiliac joint in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation were evaluated by an optical tracking system, in a multidirectional flexibility pure moment model, between ± 7.5 Nm applied moment loads. The centers of the instantaneous axis of rotation (cIAR) of the sacroiliac joint were evaluated during flexion-extension loading. A correlation analysis was performed between the ROM reduction in flexion-extension upon implantation and shift of the cIAR to the graft implantation site. RESULTS: Unilateral and bilateral fixations generated sacroiliac joint ROM reductions in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation motions. Fixation shifted the cIAR to the graft implantation site. Reduction in the total range of motion had a moderate correlation with the shift of the cIAR. CONCLUSION: Our novel posterior approach presents a multifaceted mechanism for stabilizing the joint: first, by the reduction of the total range of motion in all planes of motion; second, by shifting the centers of the instantaneous axis of rotation towards the implant's location in the predominant plane of motion, ensuring little to no motion at the implantation site, thus promoting fusion in this region.