Search

Objective: Posterior cervical fusion is a common surgical treatment for patients with myeloradiculopathy or regional deformity. Several studies have found increased stresses at the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) and significantly higher revision surgery rates in multilevel cervical constructs that terminate at C7. The purpose of this study was to investigate the biomechanical effects of selecting C7 versus T1 versus T2 as the lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV) in multisegmental posterior cervicothoracic fusion procedures., Methods: Seven fresh-frozen cadaveric cervicothoracic spines (C2-L1) with ribs intact were tested. After analysis of the intact specimens, posterior rods and lateral mass screws were sequentially added to create the following constructs: C3-7 fixation, C3-T1 fixation, and C3-T2 fixation. In vitro flexibility tests were performed to determine the range of motion (ROM) of each group in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR), and to measure intradiscal pressure of the distal adjacent level (DAL)., Results: In FE, selecting C7 as the LIV instead of crossing the CTJ resulted in the greatest increase in ROM (2.54°) and pressure (29.57 pound-force per square inch [psi]) at the DAL in the construct relative to the intact specimen. In LB, selecting T1 as the LIV resulted in the greatest increase in motion (0.78°) and the lowest increase in pressure (3.51 psi) at the DAL relative to intact spines. In AR, selecting T2 as the LIV resulted in the greatest increase in motion (0.20°) at the DAL, while selecting T1 as the LIV resulted in the greatest increase in pressure (8.28 psi) in constructs relative to intact specimens. Although these trends did not reach statistical significance, the observed differences were most apparent in FE, where crossing the CTJ resulted in less motion and lower intradiscal pressures at the DAL., Conclusions: The present biomechanical cadaveric study demonstrated that a cervical posterior fixation construct with its LIV crossing the CTJ produces less stress in its distal adjacent discs compared with constructs with C7 as the LIV. Future clinical testing is necessary to determine the impact of this finding on patient outcomes.

Objective: The two most common revision options available for the management of loose pedicle screws are larger-diameter screws and cement augmentation into the vertebral body for secondary fixation. An alternative revision method is impaction grafting (pedicoplasty) of the failed pedicle screw track. This technique uses the impaction of corticocancellous bone into the pedicle and vertebral body through a series of custom funnels to reconstitute a new pedicle wall and a neomedullary canal. The goal of this study was to compare the biomechanics of screws inserted after pedicoplasty (impaction grafting) of a pedicle defect to those of an upsized screw and a cement-augmented screw., Methods: For this biomechanical cadaveric study the investigators used 10 vertebral bodies (L1-5) that were free of metastatic disease or primary bone disease. Following initial screw insertion, each screw was subjected to a pullout force that was applied axially along the screw trajectory at 5 mm per minute until failure. Each specimen was instrumented with a pedicoplasty revision using the original screw diameter, and on the contralateral side either a fenestrated screw with cement augmentation or a screw upsized by 1 mm was inserted in a randomized fashion. These revisions were then pulled out using the previously mentioned methods., Results: Initial screw pullout values for the paired upsized screw and pedicoplasty were 717 ± 511 N and 774 ± 414 N, respectively (p = 0.747) (n = 14). Revised pullout values for the paired upsized screw and pedicoplasty were 775 ± 461 N and 762 ± 320 N, respectively (p = 0.932). Initial pullout values for the paired cement augmentation and pedicoplasty were 792 ± 434 N and 880 ± 558 N, respectively (p = 0.649). Revised pullout values for the paired cement augmentation and pedicoplasty were 1159 ± 300 N and 687 ± 213 N, respectively (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Pedicle defects are difficult to manage. Reconstitution of the pedicle and creation of a neomedullary canal appears to be possible through the use of pedicoplasty. Biomechanically, screws that have been used in pedicoplasty have equivalent pullout strength to an upsized screw, and have greater insertional torques than those with the same diameter that have not been used in pedicoplasty, yet they are not superior to cement augmentation. This study suggests that although cement augmentation appears to have superior pullout force, the novel pedicoplasty technique offers promise as a viable biological revision option for the management of failed pedicle screws compared with the option of standard upsized screws in a cadaveric model. These findings will ultimately need to be further assessed in a clinical setting.

Objective: The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a known source of low-back pain. Randomized clinical trials support sacroiliac fusion over conservative management for SIJ dysfunction. Clinical studies suggest that SIJ degeneration occurs in the setting of lumbosacral fusions. However, there are few biomechanical studies to provide a good understanding of the effect of lumbosacral fusion on the SIJ. In the present study, researchers performed a biomechanical investigation to discern the effect of pelvic versus SIJ fixation on the SIJ in lumbosacral fusion., Methods: Seven fresh-frozen human cadaveric specimens were used. There was one intact specimen and six operative constructs: 1) posterior pedicle screws and rods from T10 to S1 (PS); 2) PS + bilateral iliac screw fixation (BIS); 3) PS + unilateral iliac screw fixation (UIS); 4) PS + UIS + 3 contralateral unilateral SIJ screws (UIS + 3SIJ); 5) PS + 3 unilateral SIJ screws (3SIJ); and 6) PS + 6 bilateral SIJ screws (6SIJ). A custom-built 6 degrees-of-freedom apparatus was used to simulate three bending modes: flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR). Range of motion (ROM) was recorded at L5-S1 and the SIJ., Results: All six operative constructs had significantly reduced ROM at L5-S1 in all three bending modes compared to that of the intact specimen (p < 0.05). In the FE mode, the BIS construct had a significant reduction in L5-S1 ROM as compared to the other five constructs (p < 0.05). SIJ ROM was greatest in the FE mode compared to LB and AR. Although the FE mode did not show any statistically significant differences in SIJ ROM across the constructs, there were appreciable differences. The PS construct had the highest SIJ ROM. The BIS construct reduced bilateral SIJ ROM by 44% in comparison to the PS construct. The BIS and 6SIJ constructs showed reductions in SIJ ROM nearly equal to those of the PS construct. UIS and 3SIJ showed an appreciable reduction in unfused SIJ ROM compared to PS., Conclusions: This investigation demonstrated the effects of various fusion constructs using pelvic and sacroiliac fixation in lumbosacral fusion. This study adds biomechanical evidence of adjacent segment stress in the SIJ in fusion constructs extending to S1. Unilateral pelvic fixation, or SIJ fusion, led to an appreciable but nonsignificant reduction in the ROM of the unfused contralateral SIJ. Bilateral pelvic fixation showed the greatest significant reduction of movement at L5-S1 and was equivalent to bilateral sacroiliac fusion in reducing SIJ motion.

Objective: Posterior 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., Methods: Grade 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., Results: The 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., Conclusions: While 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.