Search

Study Design: Biomechanical cadaveric study. Objectives: Multi-rod constructs maximize posterior fixation, but most use a single pedicle screw (PS) anchor point to support multiple rods. Robotic navigation allows for insertion of PS and cortical screw (CS) within the same pedicle, providing 4 points of bony fixation per vertebra. Recent studies demonstrated radiographic feasibility for dual-screw constructs for posterior lumbar spinal fixation; however, biomechanical characterization of this technique is lacking. Methods: Fourteen cadaveric lumbar specimens (L1–L5) were divided into 2 groups (n = 7): PS, and PS + CS. VCF was simulated at L3. Bilateral posterior screws were placed from L2–L4. Load control (±7.5Nm) testing performed in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), axial rotation (AR) to measure ROM of: (1) intact; (2) 2-rod construct; (3) 4-rod construct. Static compression testing of 4-rod construct performed at 5 mm/min to measure failure load, axial stiffness. Results: Four-rod construct was more rigid than 2-rod in FE (P <.001), LB (P <.001), AR (P <.001). Screw technique had no significant effect on FE (P =.516), LB (P =.477), or AR (P =.452). PS + CS 4-rod construct was significantly more stable than PS group (P =.032). Stiffness of PS + CS group (445.8 ± 79.3 N/mm) was significantly greater (P =.019) than PS (317.8 ± 79.8 N/mm). Similarly, failure load of PS + CS group (1824.9 ± 352.2 N) was significantly greater (P =.001) than PS (913.4 ± 309.8 N). Conclusions: Dual-screw, 4-rod construct may be more stable than traditional rod-to-rod connectors, especially in axial rotation. Axial stiffness and ultimate strength of 4-rod, dual-screw construct were significantly greater than rod-to-rod. In this study, 4-rod construct was found to have potential biomechanical benefits of increased strength, stiffness, stability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is evidence that interfragmentary fracture gap size may affect the compression achievable with a modern headless compression screw (HCS). This mechanical study compared the compression achieved by 3 commercial HCS systems through various fracture gaps: CAPTIVATE Headless (Globus Medical, Inc, Audubon, Pennsylvania), Synthes (DePuy Synthes, Westchester, Pennsylvania), and Acumed Acutrak 2 (Acumed LLC, Hillsboro, Oregon). Methods: Screws were inserted into a custom test fixture composed of polyurethane synthetic bone foam fragments, separated by a layer of easily compressible polyurethane foam simulating a fracture gap. Compression was measured after final insertion and countersinking. The effect of the interfragmentary fracture gap size on the compression generated was also investigated. Results: The CAPTIVATE Headless 3.0 mm screw (70.1 ± 5.7 N) and the Synthes 3.0 mm screw (64.9 ± 7.3 N) achieved similar compressive forces after final countersink. Similar comparisons were found for the CAPTIVATE Headless 2.5 mm and Synthes 2.4 mm screws, and the CAPTIVATE Headless 4.0 mm and Acutrak 2 Standard screws. The final compression of the CAPTIVATE Headless 2.5 mm and Synthes 2.4 mm screws was not significantly affected when the fracture gap was doubled from 2 to 4 mm, but was reduced significantly by 95.9% with the Acutrak 2 Micro screw. Conclusion: When comparing like-sized screws, the CAPTIVATE, Synthes, and Acutrak 2 HCS systems demonstrated similar potential compressive forces. However, compared with the CAPTIVATE Headless and Synthes HCS systems, which are inserted with a compression sleeve that is not gap distance–dependent, the Acutrak 2 HCS system demonstrated less compression when the simulated fracture gap size was increased to 4 mm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.