Search

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF, TLIF) are well-established procedures for spinal fusion. However, little is known about load sharing between cage, dorsal construct, and biological tissue within the instrumented lumbar spine. PURPOSE The aim of this study was to quantify the forces acting on cages under axial compression force with and without posterior instrumentation. STUDY DESIGN Biomechanical cadaveric study. METHODS Ten lumbar spinal segments were tested under uniaxial compression using load cell instrumented intervertebral cages. The force was increased in 100N increments to 1000N or a force greater than 500N on one load cell. Each specimen was tested after unilateral PLIF (uPLIF), bilateral PLIF (bPLIF) and TLIF each with/without posterior instrumentation. Dorsal instrumentation was performed with 55N of compression per side. RESULTS Cage insertion resulted in median cage preloads of 16N, 29N and 35N for uPLIF, bPLIF, and TLIF. The addition of compressed dorsal instrumentation increased the median preload to 224N, 328N, and 317N, respectively. With posterior instrumentation, the percentage of the external load acting on the intervertebral cage was less than 25% at 100N (uPLIF: 14.2%; bPLIF: 16%; TLIF: 11%), less than 45% at 500N (uPLIF: 31.8%; bPLIF: 41.1%; TLIF: 37.9%) and less than 50% at 1000N (uPLIF: 40.3%; bPLIF: 49.7%; TLIF: 43.4%). Without posterior instrumentation, the percentage of external load on the cages was significantly higher with values above 50% at 100N (uPLIF: 55.6%; bPLIF: 75.5%; TLIF: 66.8%), 500N (uPLIF: 71.7%; bPLIF: 79.2%; TLIF: 65.4%), and 1000N external load (uPLIF: 73%; bPLIF: 80.5%; TLIF: 66.1%). For absolute loads, preloads and external loads must be added together. CONCLUSIONS Without posterior instrumentation, the intervertebral cages absorb more than 50% of the axial load and the load distribution is largely independent of the loading amplitude. With posterior instrumentation, the e

BACKGROUD CONTEXT Pedicle screws are commonly used for posterior fixation of the lumbar spine. Inaccuracy of screw placement can lead to disastrous complications. PURPOSE As fluoroscopic assisted pedicle screw instrumentation is the most frequently used technique, the aim of this study was to assess the specificity, sensitivity and accuracy of intraoperative fluoroscopy to detect mediolateral screw malpositioning. We also analyzed whether the addition of an oblique view could improve these parameters. STUDY DESIGN On 12 human cadavers, 138 pedicle screws were placed intentionally either with 0 to 2 mm (75 screws), with 2 to 4 mm (six medial and 12 lateral screws) and with >4 mm (22 medial and 23 lateral screws) breach of the pedicle from Th12 to L5. METHODS Three experienced spine surgeons evaluated the screw positioning in fluoroscopic AP views and 4 weeks later in AP views and additional oblique views. The surgeons' interpretation was compared with the effective screw position on postoperative CT scans. RESULTS Pedicle breaches greater than 2 mm were detected in 68% with AP views and in 67% with additional oblique views (p=.742). The specificity of AP views was 0.86 and 0.93 with additional oblique views (p=<.01). The accuracy was 0.78 with AP views and 0.81 with AP + oblique views (p=.114). There was a substantial inter-reader agreement (Fleiss's kappa: 0.632). CONCLUSIONS Fluoroscopic screening of pedicle screw misplacement has a limited sensitivity. Adding an oblique view improves specificity but not sensitivity and accuracy in detecting screw malpositions. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE When in doubt of a screw malpositioning, other modalities than a fluoroscopic assisted pedicle screw instrumentation such as intraoperative CT imaging or an intraoperative exploration of the screw trajectory must be evaluated.

Background: Spinal fusion is the most common surgical treatment for the management of degenerative spinal disease. However, complications such as screw loosening lead to painful pseudoarthrosis, and are a common reason for revision. Optimization of screw trajectories to increase implant resistance to mechanical loading is essential. A recent optimization method has shown potential for determining optimal screw position and size based on areas of high bone elastic modulus (E-modulus). Aim: The aim of this biomechanical study was to verify the optimization algorithm for pedicle screw placement in a cadaveric study and to quantify the effect of optimization. The pull-out strength of pedicle screws with an optimized trajectory was compared to that of a traditional trajectory. Methods: Twenty-five lumbar vertebrae were instrumented with pedicle screws (on one side, the pedicle screws were inserted in the traditional way, on the other side, the screws were inserted using an optimized trajectory). Results: An improvement in pull-out strength and pull-out strain energy of the optimized screw trajectory compared to the traditional screw trajectory was only observed for E-modulus values greater than 3500 MPa cm$^{3}$. For values of 3500 MPa cm$^{3}$ or less, optimization showed no clear benefit. The median screw length of the optimized pedicle screws was significantly smaller than the median screw length of the traditionally inserted pedicle screws, p < 0.001. Discussion: Optimization of the pedicle screw trajectory is feasible, but seems to apply only to vertebrae with very high E-modulus values. This is likely because screw trajectory optimization resulted in a reduction in screw length and therefore a reduction in the implant-bone interface. Future efforts to predict the optimal pedicle screw trajectory should include screw length as a critical component of potential stability.

PURPOSE: To elucidate residual motion of cortical screw (CS) and pedicle screw (PS) constructs with unilateral posterior lumbar interbody fusion (ul-PLIF), bilateral PLIF (bl-PLIF), facet-sparing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (fs-TLIF), and facet-resecting TLIF (fr-TLIF). METHODS: A total of 35 human cadaver lumbar segments were instrumented with PS (n = 18) and CS (n = 17). Range of motion (ROM) and relative ROM changes were recorded in flexion/extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), axial rotation (AR), lateral shear (LS), anterior shear (AS), and axial compression (AC) in five instrumentational states: without interbody fusion (wo-IF), ul-PLIF, bl-PLIF, fs-TLIF, and fr-TLIF. RESULTS: Whereas FE, LB, AR, and AC noticeably differed between the instrumentational states, AS and LS were less prominently affected. Compared to wo-IF, ul-PLIF caused a significant increase in ROM with PS (FE + 42%, LB + 24%, AR + 34%, and AC + 77%), however, such changes were non-significant with CS. ROM was similar between wo-IF and all other interbody fusion techniques. Insertion of a second PLIF (bl-PLIF) significantly decreased ROM with CS (FE -17%, LB -26%, AR -20%, AC -51%) and PS (FE - 23%, LB - 14%, AR - 20%, AC - 45%,). Facet removal in TLIF significantly increased ROM with CS (FE + 6%, LB + 9%, AR + 17%, AC of + 23%) and PS (FE + 7%, AR + 12%, AC + 13%). CONCLUSION: bl-PLIF and TLIF show similarly low residual motion in both PS and CS constructs, but ul-PLIF results in increased motion. The fs-TLIF technique is able to further decrease motion compared to fr-TLIF in both the CS and PS constructs.

PURPOSE: To develop and test synthetic vertebral stabilization techniques ("vertebropexy") that can be used after decompression surgery and furthermore to compare them with a standard dorsal fusion procedure. METHODS: Twelve spinal segments (Th12/L1: 4, L2/3: 4, L4/5: 4) were tested in a stepwise surgical decompression and stabilization study. Stabilization was achieved with a FiberTape cerclage, which was pulled through the spinous process (interspinous technique) or through one spinous process and around both laminae (spinolaminar technique). The specimens were tested (1) in the native state, after (2) unilateral laminotomy, (3) interspinous vertebropexy and (4) spinolaminar vertebropexy. The segments were loaded in flexion-extension (FE), lateral shear (LS), lateral bending (LB), anterior shear (AS) and axial rotation (AR). RESULTS: Interspinous fixation significantly reduced ROM in FE by 66% (p = 0.003), in LB by 7% (p = 0.006) and in AR by 9% (p = 0.02). Shear movements (LS and AS) were also reduced, although not significantly: in LS reduction by 24% (p = 0.07), in AS reduction by 3% (p = 0.21). Spinolaminar fixation significantly reduced ROM in FE by 68% (p = 0.003), in LS by 28% (p = 0.01), in LB by 10% (p = 0.003) and AR by 8% (p = 0.003). AS was also reduced, although not significantly: reduction by 18% (p = 0.06). Overall, the techniques were largely comparable. The spinolaminar technique differed from interspinous fixation only in that it had a greater effect on shear motion. CONCLUSION: Synthetic vertebropexy is able to reduce lumbar segmental motion, especially in flexion-extension. The spinolaminar technique affects shear forces to a greater extent than the interspinous technique.

PURPOSE: To develop ligamentous vertebral stabilization techniques ("vertebropexy") that can be used after microsurgical decompression (intact posterior structures) and midline decompression (removed posterior structures) and to elaborate their biomechanical characteristics. METHODS: Fifteen spinal segments were biomechanically tested in a stepwise surgical decompression and ligamentous stabilization study. Stabilization was achieved with a gracilis or semitendinosus tendon allograft, which was attached to the spinous process (interspinous vertebropexy) or the laminae (interlaminar vertebropexy) in form of a loop. The specimens were tested (1) in the native state, after (2) microsurgical decompression, (3) interspinous vertebropexy, (4) midline decompression, and (5) interlaminar vertebropexy. In the intact state and after every surgical step, the segments were loaded in flexion-extension (FE), lateral shear (LS), lateral bending (LB), anterior shear (AS) and axial rotation (AR). RESULTS: Interspinous vertebropexy significantly reduced the range of motion (ROM) in all loading scenarios compared to microsurgical decompression: in FE by 70% (p < 0.001), in LS by 22% (p < 0.001), in LB by 8% (p < 0.001) in AS by 12% (p < 0.01) and in AR by 9% (p < 0.001). Interlaminar vertebropexy decreased ROM compared to midline decompression by 70% (p < 0.001) in FE, 18% (p < 0.001) in LS, 11% (p < 0.01) in LB, 7% (p < 0.01) in AS, and 4% (p < 0.01) in AR. Vertebral segment ROM was significantly smaller with the interspinous vertebropexy compared to the interlaminar vertebropexy for all loading scenarios except FE. Both techniques were able to reduce vertebral body segment ROM in FE, LS and LB beyond the native state. CONCLUSION: Vertebropexy is a new concept of semi-rigid spinal stabilization based on ligamentous reinforcement of the spinal segment. It is able to reduce motion, especially in flexion-extension. Studies are needed to evaluate its clinical application.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to elucidate segmental range of motion (ROM) before and after common decompression and fusion procedures on the lumbar spine. METHODS: ROM of fourteen fresh-frozen human cadaver lumbar segments (L1/2: 4, L3/4: 5, L5/S1: 5) was evaluated in six loading directions: flexion/extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), lateral shear (LS), anterior shear (AS), axial rotation (AR), and axial compression/distraction (AC). ROM was tested with and without posterior instrumentation under the following conditions: 1) native 2) after unilateral laminotomy, 3) after midline decompression, and 4) after nucleotomy. RESULTS: Median native ROM was FE 6.8°, LB 5.6°, and AR 1.7°, AS 1.8 mm, LS 1.4 mm, AC 0.3 mm. Unilateral laminotomy significantly increased ROM by 6% (FE), 3% (LB), 12% (AR), 11% (AS), and 8% (LS). Midline decompression significantly increased these numbers to 15%, 5%, 21%, 20%, and 19%, respectively. Nucleotomy further increased ROM in all directions, most substantially in AC of 153%. Pedicle screw fixation led to ROM decreases of 82% in FE, 72% in LB, 42% in AR, 31% in AS, and 17% in LS. In instrumented segments, decompression only irrelevantly affected ROM. CONCLUSIONS: The amount of posterior decompression significantly impacts ROM of the lumbar spine. The here performed biomechanical study allows creation of a simplified rule of thumb: Increases in segmental ROM of approximately 10%, 20%, and 50% can be expected after unilateral laminotomy, midline decompression, and nucleotomy, respectively. Instrumentation decreases ROM by approximately 80% in bending moments and accompanied decompression procedures only minorly destabilize the instrumentation construct.

PURPOSE To compare the residual range of motion (ROM) of cortical screw (CS) versus pedicle screw (PS) instrumented lumbar segments and the additional effect of transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) and cross-link (CL) augmentation. METHODS ROM of thirty-five human cadaver lumbar segments in flexion/extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), lateral shear (LS), anterior shear (AS), axial rotation (AR), and axial compression (AC) was recorded. After instrumenting the segments with PS (n = 17) and CS (n = 18), ROM in relation to the uninstrumented segments was evaluated without and with CL augmentation before and after decompression and TLIF. RESULTS CS and PS instrumentations both significantly reduced ROM in all loading directions, except AC. In undecompressed segments, a significantly lower relative (and absolute) reduction of motion in LB was found with CS 61% (absolute 3.3°) as compared to PS 71% (4.0°; p = 0.048). FE, AR, AS, LS, and AC values were similar between CS and PS instrumented segments without interbody fusion. After decompression and TLIF insertion, no difference between CS and PS was found in LB and neither in any other loading direction. CL augmentation did not diminish differences in LB between CS and PS in the undecompressed state but led to an additional small AR reduction of 11% (0.15°) in CS and 7% (0.05°) in PS instrumentation. CONCLUSION Similar residual motion is found with CS and PS instrumentation, except of slightly, but significantly inferior reduction of ROM in LB with CS. Differences between CS and PS in diminish with TLIF but not with CL augmentation.

Posterior screw-rod constructs can be used to stabilize spinal segments; however, the stiffness is not absolute, and some motion can persist. While the effect of crosslink-augmentation has been evaluated in multiple studies, the fundamental explanation of their effectiveness has not been investigated. The aim of this study was to quantify the parameters "screw rotation" and "parallelogram deformation" in posterior instrumentations with and without crosslinks to analyze and explain their fundamental effect. Biomechanical testing of 15 posteriorly instrumented human spinal segments (Th10/11-L4/L5) was conducted in axial rotation, lateral bending, and flexion-extension with ± 7.5 Nm. Screw rotation and parallelogram deformation were compared for both configurations. Parallelogram deformation occurred predominantly during axial rotation (2.6°) and was reduced by 60% (-1.45°, p = 0.02) by the addition of a crosslink. Simultaneously, screw rotation (0.56°) was reduced by 48% (-0.27°, p = 0.02) in this loading condition. During lateral bending, 0.38° of parallelogram deformation and 1.44° of screw rotation was measured and no significant reduction was achieved by crosslink-augmentation (8%, -0.03°, -p = 0.3 and -13%, -0.19°, p = 0.7 respectively). During flexion-extension, parallelogram deformation was 0.4° and screw rotation was 0.39° and crosslink-augmentation had no significant effect on these values (-0.12°, -30%, p = 0.5 and -0°, -0%, p = 0.8 respectively). In axial rotation, crosslink-augmentation can reduce parallelogram deformation and with that, screw rotation. In lateral bending and flexion-extension parallelogram deformation is minimal and crosslink-augmentation has no significant effect. Since the relatively large screw rotation in lateral bending is not caused by parallelogram deformation, crosslink-augmentation is no adequate countermeasure. The fundamental understanding of the biomechanical effect of crosslink-augmentation helps better understand its potenti

The cortical bone trajectory (CBT) has been introduced with the aim of better screw hold, however, screw-rod constructs with this trajectory might provide less rigidity in lateral bending (LB) and axial rotation (AR) compared to the constructs with the traditional trajectory (TT). Therefore, the addition of a horizontal cross-connector could be beneficial in counteracting this possible inferiority. The aim of this study was to compare the primary rigidity of TT with CBT screw-rod constructs and to quantify the effect of cross-connector-augmentation in both. Spines of four human cadavers (T9 -L5) were cropped into 15 functional spine units (FSU). Eight FSUs were instrumented with TT and seven FSUs with CBT pedicle screws. The segments were tested in six loading directions in three configurations: uninstrumented, instrumented with and without cross-connector. The motion between the cranial and caudal vertebra was recorded. The range of motion (ROM) between the CBT and the TT group did not differ significantly in either configuration. Cross-connector -augmentation did reduce the ROM in AR (16.3%, 0.27°, p = 0.02), LB (2.9%, 0.07°, p = 0.03) and flexion-extension FE (2.3%, 0.04°, p = 0.02) for the TT group and in AR (20.6%, 0.31°, p = 0.01) for the CBT-group. The primary rigidity of TT and CBT single level screw-rod constructs did not show significant difference. The minimal reduction of ROM due to cross-connector-augmentation seems clinically not relevant. Based on the findings of these study there is no increased necessity to use a cross-connector in a CBT-construct.