Search

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the correction rate in Cobb angle and the improvement in quality of life profile in terms of Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22 values., Patients and Methods: Between January 2007 and December 2013, posterior instrumentation and fusion was performed to 30 patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Patients were grouped according to their improvement rate in Cobb angles after surgery. Patients with an improvement rate of > 80% were grouped as Group A; those with an improvement rate of > 60% and ≤ 80% as Group B and those with an improvement rate of ≤ 60% were grouped as Group C. The SRS-22 questionnaire of these three groups was calculated and their relationship with the improvement in Cobb angle was evaluated., Results: No statistical difference was found among the three groups in terms of pain, appearance, function, spirit, satisfaction, and SRS-22 values (all p > 0.05)., Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrate that the degree of correction rate does not correlate with the degree of improvement in the SRS-22 questionnaire in patients with AIS that underwent posterior fusion and instrumentation., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Comparative biomechanical study was conducted in osteoporotic human cadaveric spines., Objective: Determine the influence of the volume of polymethyl methacrylate injected through a fenestrated pedicle screw on the pullout strength and on the ability to safely remove the implant., Summary of Background Data: Pedicle screw fixation in the osteoporotic spine can be improved by the addition of bone cement. Various injection techniques have been used. While improvement has been shown for the pullout strength, the optimal volume of cement to inject has not been previously studied., Methods: Seven osteoporotic spines were instrumented with a standard and a fenestrated pedicle screw augmented with polymethyl methacrylate at each level (T7-L5). Three volumes of bone cement were randomly injected and stratified to the thoracic (0.5 cc, 1.0 cc, and 1.5 cc) and lumbar spine (1.5 cc, 2.0 cc, and 2.5 cc). Axial pullout strength and removal torque of the pedicle screws were quantified., Results: The pullout strength of the fenestrated screw was normalized with respect to its contralateral control. Student paired t tests were conducted and a statistically significant increase was noted for 1.0 cc (186 ± 45%) and 1.5 cc (158 ± 46%) in the thoracic spine and for 1.5 cc (264 ± 193%), 2.0 cc (221 ± 93%), and 2.5 cc (198 ± 42%) in the lumbar spine. There was no significant difference with higher volumes of cement. The median removal torque was 0.34 Nm for the standard and 1.83 Nm for the augmented screws. When the augmented implants were removed, the bone cement sheared completely off at the fenestrations in 15 of the 17 cases., Conclusion: Significant increases in pullout strength can be accomplished by injecting a limited quantity of bone cement through a fenestrated screw while minimizing the risks associated with higher volume. The majority of implants were removed without damaging the vertebra as the bone cement sheared off at the fenestrations.

Objective: To evaluate the biomechanics of lumbar motion segments instrumented with stand-alone OptiMesh system augmented with posterior fixation using facet or pedicle screws and the efficacy of discectomy and disc distraction., Background Context: OptiMesh bone graft containment system has been used for vertebral compression fractures and percutaneous lumbar interbody fusion. The filled mesh bag serves as the interbody device providing structural support to the motion segment being fused. No biomechanical data of this new device are available in the literature., Methods: Twenty-four fresh human cadaveric lumbar motion segments were divided into two groups. In the control group, multidirectional flexibility testing was conducted after an intact condition and standard transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure. In the OptiMesh group, testing was performed following intact, stand-alone OptiMesh procedure, OptiMesh with facet screws (placed using the transfacet approach), and OptiMesh with pedicle screws and rods. Range of motion (ROM) was calculated for each surgical treatment. The lordosis and disc height change of intact and instrumented specimens were measured in the lateral radiographs to evaluate the disc space distraction. In the OptiMesh group, cyclic loading in flexion extension (FE) was applied to measure cage subsidence or collapse (10,000 cycles at 6 Nm). After biomechanical testing, all the specimens were dissected to inspect the discectomy and end plate preparation. The area of discectomy was measured., Results: The mean ROM of the intact specimens was 2.7°, 7.4°, and 7.2° in axial torsion (AT), lateral bending (LB), and FE, respectively. There was no difference between the control group and OptiMesh group. The mean ROM of the stand-alone OptiMesh system decreased to 2.4°, 5.1°, and 4.3° in AT, LB, and FE. The ROM decreased to 0.9° in AT, 2.2° in LB, and 0.9° in FE with OptiMesh system and facet screws. On average, OptiMesh system with pedicle screws and rods reduced the ROM to 1.3° in AT, 1.6° in LB, and 1.1° in FE. Compared with the intact condition and stand-alone OptiMesh system, both posterior fixation options had significant statistical difference (p<.001). In AT, ROM of facet screws was lower than that of pedicle screws (p < .05). There was no statistical difference between the facet and pedicle screws in LB and FE (p > .05). The mean volume of bone graft packed into each bag was 8.3 ± 1.5 cc. The average increase of lordosis was 0.6° ± 1.0° after meshed bag was deployed. The average distraction achieved by the OptiMesh system was 1.0 ± 0.6 mm. The average prepared area of discectomy was 42% of the total disc. The disc height change after cyclic loading was 0.2 mm. No subsidence or collapse was noticed., Conclusions: The OptiMesh system offers large volume of bone graft in the disc space with small access portals. The OptiMesh system had similar construct stability to that of standard TLIF procedure when posterior fixation was applied. However, the amount of distraction was limited without additional distraction tools. With the anterior support provided by the expandable meshed bag, facet screws had comparable construct stability to that of pedicle screws. Slightly higher stability was observed in facet screws in AT., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Pedicle screws are placed using pilot holes. The trajectory of pilot holes can be verified by pedicle sounding or radiographs. However, a pilot hole alone does not insure that the screw will follow the pilot hole. No studies have characterized the risk of misalignment of a pedicle screw with respect to its pilot hole trajectory. The objective of this study was to measure the misalignment angles between pedicle screws and pilot holes with or without tapping. Six human cadaveric thoracic spines were used. One hundred and forty pilot holes were created with a straight probe. Steel wires were temporarily inserted and their positions were recorded with CT scans. The left pedicles were tapped with 4.5 mm fluted tap and the right pedicles remained untapped. Pedicle screws (5.5 mm) were inserted into the tapped and untapped pedicles followed by CT scans. The trajectories of pilot holes and screws were calculated using three-dimensional vector analysis. A total of 133 pilot holes (95%) were inside pedicles. For the untapped side, 14 out of 68 (20%) screws did not follow the pilot holes and were outside the pedicles. For the tapped side, 2 out of 65 (3%) did not follow and breached the pedicles. The average misalignment angles between the screw and pilot hole trajectory were 7.7 degrees +/- 6.5 degrees and 5.6 degrees +/- 3.2 degrees for the untapped side and tapped side, respectively (P < 0.05). Most pedicle screws had lateral screw breach (13 out of 16) whereas most pilot holes had medial pedicle breach (6 out of 7). Tapping of pilot holes (1 mm undertap) helps align pedicle screws and reduces the risk of screw malposition. Although most pedicle screws had lateral breach, the risk of medial pedicle breach of the pilot holes must be recognized.

Background Context: Multilevel lumbar disc disease (MLDD) is a common finding in many patients. Surgical solutions for MLDD include fusion or disc replacement. The hybrid model, combining fusion and disc replacement, is a potential alternative for patients who require surgical intervention at both L5-S1 and L4-L5. The indications for this hybrid model could be posterior element insufficiency, severe facet pathology, calcified ligamentum flavum, and subarticular disease confirming spinal stenosis at L5-S1 level, or previous fusion surgery at L5-S1 and new symptomatic pathology at L4-L5. Biomechanical data of the hybrid model with the Maverick disc and anterior fusion are not available in the literature., Purpose: To compare the biomechanical properties of a two-level Maverick disc replacement at L4-L5, L5-S1, and a hybrid model consisting of an L4-L5 Maverick disc replacement with an L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion using multidirectional flexibility test., Study Design: An in vitro human cadaveric biomechanical study., Methods: Six fresh human cadaveric lumbar specimens (L4-S1) were subjected to unconstrained load in axial torsion (AT), lateral bending (LB), flexion (F), extension (E), and flexion-extension (FE) using multidirectional flexibility test. Four surgical treatments-intact, one-level Maverick at L5-S1, two-level Maverick between L4 and S1, and the hybrid model (anterior fusion at L5-S1 and Maverick at L4-L5) were tested in sequential order. The range of motion of each treatment was calculated., Results: The Maverick disc replacement slightly reduced intact motion in AT and LB at both levels. The total FE motion was similar to the intact motion. However, the E motion is significantly increased (approximately 50% higher) and F motion is significantly decreased (30%-50% lower). The anterior fusion using a cage and anterior plate significantly reduced spinal motion compared with the condition (p<.05). No significant differences were found between two-level Maverick disc prosthesis and the hybrid model in terms of all motion types at L4-L5 level (p>.05)., Conclusion: The Maverick disc preserved total motion but altered the motion pattern of the intact condition. This result is similar to unconstrained devices such as Charité. The motion at L4-L5 of the hybrid model is similar to that of two-level Maverick disc replacement. The fusion procedure using an anterior plate significantly reduced intact motion. Clinical studies are recommended to validate the efficacy of the hybrid model.

Single level axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) using a transsacral rod through a paracoccygeal approach has been developed with promising early clinical results and biomechanical stability. Recently, the transsacral rod has been extended to perform a two-level fusion at both L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels (AxiaLIF II). No biomechanical studies have been conducted on multilevel fusion using the AxiaLIF technique. In this study, the biomechanics of L4-S1 motion segments instrumented with the AxiaLIF II transsacral rod was evaluated. Six human cadaveric lumbosacral spine segments from L4 to S1 were used (age ranges 46-74 years). Unconstrained and non-destructive pure moments in axial torsion, lateral bending, and flexion extension were applied to each specimen following intact, standalone AxiaLIF II, and AxiaLIF II with two posterior fixation options: facet screws and pedicle screws with rods. Range of motion was calculated from the raw data collected with an optical motion tracking system. The two-level transsacral rod was successfully inserted in all the specimens. At L4-L5 level in axial torsion (AT) and flexion extension (FE), none of the surgical treatments showed statistically significant difference between the procedures (all P > 0.05) although facet screws and pedicle screws had higher stability on average. In lateral bending (LB), the two posterior fixation techniques had significantly higher construct stability (P < 0.05) than the standalone rod. No significant difference was found between facet screws and pedicle screws (P = 0.821). At L5-S1 level in AT and LB, none of the surgical treatments were found to be statistically significant (all P > 0.05). In FE, standalone two-level transsacral rod had significantly higher range of motion (ROM) compared with the posterior fixation techniques (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the standalone rod reduced intact ROM significantly. Supplementary fixations including facet screws and pedicle screws are required to achieve higher construct stability for successful fusion. Further clinical studies are essential to evaluate the practical success of this technique.