Search

Study Design: In vitro biomechanical investigation using human cadaveric cervical spines., Objective: Evaluate differences in biomechanical stability between typical lateral mass screw + rod constructs compared to transfacet screw fixation with and without rods., Summary of Background Data: Lateral mass screw + rod constructs have reported efficacious arthrodesis rates/quality but risk damaging the lateral neurovascular structures. Transfacet screw fixation has been studied in the lumbar spine, but little data exists regarding its potential utility in the cervical spine., Methods: Sixteen human cadaveric cervical spines were stripped of soft tissue leaving the occiput and ligamentous structures intact. Spines were randomized to lateral mass or transfacet groups (n = 8/group). Spines were prepared in typical surgical fashion and instrumented with the appropriate devices. In the case of the transfacet constructs, the occiput was left intact to simulate the potential surgical difficulty of screw insertion. The transfacet screw group was initially instrumented with rods. Once instrumented (C3-C6) for each group, spines were further dissected to isolate the instrumented levels. End vertebral bodies were rigidly fixed and constructs biomechanically tested in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial torsion between +/-2 Nm. After testing for the transfacet screw + rod group, rods were removed and spines retested. All instrumentation was then removed and spines tested in their destabilized state as would occur with surgical preparation. Stiffness data were calculated for each test direction for all groups. Raw and normalized data were each compared across techniques with a 1-way ANOVA (P < 0.05)., Results: The transfacet screw groups (with and without rods) were found to have statistically similar biomechanical stability to lateral mass screw + rod constructs for each test direction., Conclusion: Transfacet screws (without rods) were found to have similar biomechanical stability compared to typical lateral mass screw + rod constructs. However, transfacet fixation eliminates the risk to the neurovascular structures and lowers the overall implant profile.

Study Design: In vitro biomechanical investigation using human cadaveric vertebrae., Objective: Evaluate the biomechanical differences in transverse plane vertebral body derotation maneuvers of thoracic pedicle screws in both medial and lateral directions., Summary of Background Data: Thoracic pedicle screws are thought to have better vertebral rotation control and better segmental scoliosis correction compared to hooks and wires. Little data exists regarding the biomechanical stability of pedicle screws when derotated in either medial or lateral directions., Methods: Vertebral bodies (T4-L5) from 12 cadavers were instrumented with appropriate length pedicle screws while measuring insertion torque. Each body was anchored for independent loading in medial or lateral directions. Each screw was rotated around a rod using a constant length lever arm (30.5 cm) rigidly attached to the screw head simulating the posterior vertebral derotation maneuver. Yield torques (Nm) were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (P < 0.05)., Results: Yield torques for both directions were significantly related to screw insertion torque (both P < 0.01). There were no statistical differences in yield torque between medial (12.0 +/- 4.9 Nm) or lateral (11.5 +/- 5.1 Nm) directions. There were no significant differences after normalization for insertion torque or screw length. Tests rotating the screw tip laterally demonstrated structural failure in the following percentages (anterolateral failure = 67%, posterior element failure = 33%, additional screw bending = 42%). Rotation medially demonstrated structural failures in the following percentages (canal penetration = 51%, posterior element failure = 49%, additional screw bending = 44%)., Conclusion: From these data, a surgeon performing a direct vertebral derotation using a 30 cm (12 in) lever would need to apply roughly 40 N (9 lbs) to causeanatomic failure. Adolescent patients would likely tolerate a greater force without bone failure given a greater bone density, yet, extreme caution is still recommended to prevent screw rotation either medially into the spinal canal or laterally into the chest.

Study Design: In vitro biomechanical investigation of 1 and 2-screw anterior scoliosis constructs with varying screw diameters., Objective: To determine a possible optimal configuration of screw number and diameter at varying levels within the thoracic spine for anterior vertebral body fixation., Summary of Background Data: Single-rod systems are typical in anterior thoracic and thoracolumbar correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; although dual rod systems may offer more flexural stability. Loss of fixation remains problematic, particularly in the proximal thoracic vertebrae, and it remains unclear how screw diameter or the number of screws within the vertebrae affect fixation., Methods: Individual vertebral levels from 10 cadaveric thoracic spines were randomly assigned to either 1 or 2 screws of 5, 6, or 7-mm diameter. Bone-screw interface failures were created in coronal plane cantilever plow, and failure loads were compared across vertebral levels for each instrumentation method., Results: Two-screw constructs had significantly higher failure loads than single-screw constructs, while increasing screw diameter also produced significant changes in fixation strength. Two-screws had improved performance in the mid and lower thoracic spine, while a single screw was more stable in the upper thoracic spine., Conclusions: Failure modes for 1-screw constructs almost entirely (89%) showed gradual plowing through the bone, whereas acute fracture through the vertebral body or pedicles were common forms of failure (85%) for 2-screw constructs.

Study Design: In vitro biomechanical comparison of two methods of pedicle screw placement in cadaveric thoracic spine vertebrae., Objective: Compare the biomechanical integrity of extrapedicular and transpedicular screw fixation under axial and sagittal pullout loads., Summary of Background Data: Extrapedicular screw placement has been advocated as a safe and effective alternative to the transpedicular screw in thoracic vertebrae. Rigorous biomechanical comparison of these two techniques is presently lacking in the literature., Methods: Thirty-seven vertebral bodies were dissected from six cadaveric thoracic spines. Each body had two polyaxial 5.0-mm screws placed: one transpedicular and one extrapedicular. The 62 screws were randomly designated for one of two loading methods: axial or sagittal. Failure load (N), taken as maximum force on the load-deformation curve, and stiffness (N/mm), calculated between 50 N and 400 N, were measured. RESULTS.: Transpedicular screws were statistically stronger in both testing methods (P = 0.008). Load direction, whether axial or sagittal, had no bearing on pullout strength (P = 0.6)., Conclusions: These data indicate that transpedicular screws are biomechanically superior to extrapedicular screws. This difference is small, however, and we think that extrapedicular screws offer an excellent alternative when anatomy dictates their use with other screws in segmental spinal constructs.

Study Design: Biomechanical evaluation of sacropelvic fixation strategies as they apply to neuromuscular scoliosis., Objectives: The primary objective was to compare the rigidity of 2 methods of sacropelvic fixation (Galveston vs. Colorado II). The secondary objective was to evaluate the effect on construct rigidity by adding a pair of L1 pedicle screws to a Luque wire construct., Summary of Background Data: The Galveston modification to the Luque rodding system has become standard for treating childhood and adolescent neuromuscular scoliosis. The Galveston method provides reasonable lumbo-pelvic fixation with a relatively simple method of insertion. Clinical reviews of sagittal plane stability in neuromuscular patients with Galveston fixations performed at our institution have led to concerns regarding the technique's ability to maintain proper lumbar lordosis. This concern has generated interest in evaluating biomechanical stability of more rigid fixation methods in these long spino-pelvic constructs. As such, the following biomechanical study evaluated lumbosacral stability of 2 sacropelvic fixation methods: the standard Luque-Galveston method and the Colorado II sacropelvic fixation method using the Chopin plate-screw block. As a secondary interest, evaluations of the rigidity of the proximal construct when using pedicle screw fixation were completed. It was hypothesized that one additional point of rigid fixation at the thoracolumbar junction may make substantial improvement in rigidity to the otherwise Luque construct., Methods: Lumbo-pelvic segments of human cadaveric specimens were instrumented with L1 pedicle screws, sublaminar wires between L2 and L5, and sacropelvic fixation with either Galveston rods or Colorado II sacropelvic plates using S1 screws, S2 alar screws, and iliac screws. Tests were conducted for physiologic flexion-extension and torsional loading. Construct stiffness between L1-S1 was determined for each specimen. Motion measurement data were collected between L1-L5 and L5-S1 using a noncontact marker system. Statistical analysis included a 2 -way analysis of variance (dependent variables: construct/locked screw) with the Tukey post hoc correction for multiple comparisons (P < 0.05)., Results: The flexion and extension bending stiffness of the construct was similar between the Galveston and Colorado II constructs. Both constructs were stiffer when the L1 screws were locked rigidly to the rod. Torsional stiffness followed similar trends with no significant difference between the systems, although more rigid in more cases when the L1 screws were locked to the rod. Regarding limiting L5-S1 motion during flexion and extension loading, the Colorado II construct did so to a higher degree. There was no difference in torsional motion between the 2 constructs. Locking the L1 pedicle screws reduced torsional motion but had no effect on flexion-extension motion at L5-S1., Conclusion: The 2 methods of sacropelvic fixation provided similar construct stiffness, although the Colorado II method had less L5-S1 motion on flexion-extension testing, and the Galveston construct tended (although not statistically) to be stiffer in torsional loading. The addition of a pair of L1 pedicle screws increased the construct stiffness for both constructs by approximately 50%.