Lumbosacral fusion using the Boucher technique in combination with a posterolateral bone graft

A comparative cadaveric biomechanical study of bilateral FacetFuse® transfacet pedicle screws versus bilateral or unilateral pedicle screw-rod construct

Background

Achieving optimal immediate stability is crucial in lumbar fusion surgeries. Traditionally, four pedicle screws have been utilized to provide posterior stability at the L5-S1 level. However, the use of bilateral transfacet pedicle screws (TFPS) as an alternative construct has shown promising results in terms of biomechanical stability. This research paper investigates the biomechanical stability of TFPS with a lag design in comparison to equivalent-sized unilateral or bilateral fully threaded pedicle screw-rod (PSR) constructs at the L5-S1 disc level. The study assesses the immediate stability achieved by these constructs which have clinical implications in achieving lumbar segment fusion. We hypothesized that bilateral TFPS will yield immediate lumbar fixation that is comparable to unilateral or bilateral PSR constructs.

Methods

Cadaveric biomechanical testing was conducted in vitro to evaluate the stability of posterior fixation using bilateral TFPS (FacetFuse®, LESSpine, Burlington, MA, USA), bilateral and unilateral PSR (PedFuse Return, LESSpine, Burlington, MA, USA) constructs measuring 5.0 mm × 40 mm. A comprehensive analysis of range of motion (ROM) and stability under various loading conditions was performed to a maximum of 7.5 Nm. The constructs were assessed for their ability to provide immediate stability at the L5-S1 disc level.

Results

Fourteen specimens were analyzed with an average age of 53.14±10.99 years and comparable bone mineral density. TFPS demonstrated a reduced ROM that was notably lower than that of unilateral PSR in all loading modes and was comparable to bilateral PSR, especially in extension and axial rotation (AR). The unilateral and bilateral PSR groups differed notably in lateral bending (LB) and AR.

Conclusions

Bilateral TFPS demonstrated superior immediate stability than unilateral PSR and was an equivalent substitute to bilateral PSR constructs at the L5-S1 disc level. Further clinical investigations are necessary to validate these results and ascertain the long-term outcomes and advantages associated with the use of bilateral TFPS as an alternative construct. Our findings showed that bilateral TFPS could potentially reduce the number of required pedicle screws while achieving comparable stability in lumbar fusion procedures.

Alternatives to Traditional Pedicle Screws for Posterior Fixation of the Degenerative Lumbar Spine

BACKGROUND

Traditional pedicle screws are currently the gold standard to achieve stable 3-column fixation of the degenerative lumbar spine. However, there are cases in which pedicle screw fixation may not be ideal. Due to their starting point lateral to the pars interarticularis, pedicle screws require a relatively wide dissection along with a medialized trajectory directed toward the centrally located neural elements and prevertebral vasculature. In addition, low bone mineral density remains a major risk factor for pedicle screw loosening, pullout, and pseudarthrosis. The purpose of this article is to review the indications, advantages, disadvantages, and complications associated with posterior fixation techniques of the degenerative lumbar spine beyond the traditional pedicle screws.

METHODS

Comprehensive literature searches of the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were performed for 5 methods of posterior spinal fixation, including (1) cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws, (2) transfacet screws, (3) translaminar screws, (4) spinous process plates, and (5) fusion mass screws and hooks. Articles that had been published between January 1, 1990, and January 1, 2020, were considered. Non-English-language articles and studies involving fixation of the cervical or thoracic spine were excluded from our review.

RESULTS

After reviewing over 1,700 articles pertaining to CBT and non-pedicular fixation techniques, a total of 284 articles met our inclusion criteria. CBT and transfacet screws require less-extensive exposure and paraspinal muscle dissection compared with traditional pedicle screws and may therefore reduce blood loss, postoperative pain, and length of hospital stay. In addition, several methods of non-pedicular fixation such as translaminar and fusion mass screws have trajectories that are directed away from or posterior to the spinal canal, potentially decreasing the risk of neurologic injury. CBT, transfacet, and fusion mass screws can also be used as salvage techniques when traditional pedicle screw constructs fail.

CONCLUSIONS

CBT and non-pedicular fixation may be preferred in certain lumbar degenerative cases, particularly among patients with osteoporosis. Limitations of non-pedicular techniques include their reliance on intact posterior elements and the lack of 3-column fixation of the spine. As a result, transfacet and translaminar screws are infrequently used as the primary method of fixation. CBT, transfacet, and translaminar screws are effective in augmenting interbody fixation and have been shown to significantly improve fusion rates and clinical outcomes compared with stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Percutaneous CT-guided lumbar trans-facet pedicle screw fixation in lumbar microinstability syndrome: feasibility of a novel approach

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective experimental uncontrolled trial.

BACKGROUND

Lumbar microinstability (MI) is a common cause of lower back pain (LBP) and is related to intervertebral disc degeneration that leads to inability to adequately absorb applied loads. The term "microinstability" has recently been introduced to denote a specific syndrome of biomechanical dysfunction with minimal anatomical change. Trans-facet fixation (TFF) is a minimally invasive technique that involves the placement of screws across the facet joint and into the pedicle, to attain improved stability in the spine.

PURPOSE

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, in terms of pain and disability reduction, of a stand-alone TFF in treatment of patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) due to MI. Moreover, as a secondary endpoint, the purpose was to assess the feasibility and safety of a novel percutaneous CT-guided technique.

METHODS

We performed percutaneous CT-guided TFF in 84 consecutive patients presenting with chronic LBP attributable to MI at a single lumbar level without spondylolysis. Pre- and post-procedure pain and disability levels were measured using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).

RESULTS

At 2 years, TFF resulted in significant reductions in both VAS and ODI scores. CT-guided procedures were tolerated well by all patients under light sedation with a mean procedural time of 45 min, and there were no reported immediate or delayed procedural complications.

CONCLUSION

TFF seems to be a powerful technique for lumbar spine stabilization in patients with chronic mechanical LBP related to lumbar MI. CT-guided technique is fast, precise, and safe and can be performed in simple analgo-sedation.

Surgical techniques for lumbo-sacral fusion

Lumbo-sacral (L5-S1) fusion is a widely performed procedure that has become the reference standard treatment for refractory low back pain. L5-S1 is a complex transition zone between the mobile lordotic distal lumbar spine and the fixed sacral region. The goal is to immobilise the lumbo-sacral junction in order to relieve pain originating from this site. Apart from achieving inter-vertebral fusion, the main challenge lies in the preoperative determination of the fixed L5-S1 position that will be optimal for the patient. Many lumbo-sacral fusion techniques are available. Stabilisation can be achieved using various methods. An anterior, posterior, or combined approach may be used. Recently developed minimally invasive techniques are gaining in popularity based on their good clinical outcomes and high fusion rates. The objective of this conference is to resolve the main issues faced by spinal surgeons in their everyday practice.

Percutaneous Lumbar Transfacet Screw Fixation: A Technique Analysis of 176 Screws in 83 Patients With Assessment of Radiographic Accuracy, Hardware Failure, and Complications

Supplemental Digital Content Is Available in the Text.

Do facet screws provide the required stability in lumbar fixation? A biomechanical comparison of the Boucher technique and pedicular fixation in primary and circumferential fusions

BACKGROUND

Transfacet pedicle screws are scarcely used in primary posterior fixation, and have limited use unilaterally or with existing anterior instrumentation. Nevertheless, the incomplete literature suggests equivalent or better performance of ipsilateral, bilateral, facet screws compared to bilateral pedicle screws.

METHODS

Two groups of seven human cadaver spines (L3-S1) were tested under pure moments of 6 Nm. Each specimen was tested in a primary and circumferential fixation (Spacer, Spacer+Plate) environment. Both transfacet and bilateral pedicle screws were used as posterior fixation, in separate groups. Motion was obtained at L4-L5 for single-level constructs in flexion-extension, lateral bending and axial rotation modes.

FINDINGS

In primary fixation, both transfacet and bilateral pedicle screws reduced motion below intact levels. Statistically, the level of circumferential fixation (anterior, posterior, or both) proved to be more influential than the type of posterior fixation. Incorporating a spacer and plate with pedicle screws provided a greater relative gain in stability than with facet screws. The interpretation is explained through a model describing the location of fixation with respect to the center-of-rotation of the vertebral bodies. In lateral bending and axial rotation, bilateral pedicle screw constructs were stiffer than transfacet pedicle screw constructs as a trend.

INTERPRETATION

Transfacet pedicle screws provided similar fixation to bilateral pedicle screws in primary and circumferential fixations during flexion-extension. In the other modes, transfacet screw rigidity is, on average, less than bilateral pedicle screws when used alone, but with the addition of other anterior instrumentation the differences are minimized. Therefore, facet screws are warranted based on the surgical effect desired, and in the presence of additional anterior fixation.

An anatomic and radiographic study of lumbar facets relevant to percutaneous transfacet fixation

STUDY DESIGN

An anatomic study of lumbar facet anatomy for transfacet fixation.

OBJECTIVE

Describe the ideal starting point and trajectory for percutaneous transfacet fixation.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Percutaneous transfacet fixation is gaining popularity for posterior stabilization after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Despite biomechanical and clinical studies, there are no anatomic guidelines for safe placement of percuatenous transfacet screws.

METHODS

Eighty L3-S1 facet joints from embalmed cadaveric spines were analyzed. Linear and angular measurements of the facets were recorded. Under direct visualization, the segments were pinned with an ipsilateral transfacet technique. The degrees of angulation in the sagittal and axial plane were recorded. The distances of the starting point relative to landmarks of the superior body were measured. Under fluoroscopy, radiographic parameters for ideal visualization of the pin and pin ending points were determined.

RESULTS

Inferior and superior facet heights ranged from 15.7 to 17.5 mm at all levels. The percentage of inferior facet extending below the L3 and L4 end plates was 84% and 86% respectively and decreased at L5 to 72%. The percentage of superior facet extending above the end plate ranged from 36% to 44% at all levels. The transverse facet angle progressively increased from L3 to S1. The L2-L3 segments could not be instrumented from the ipsilateral side due to the vertical facet orientation. For L3-S1 segments, the starting point in the coronal plane is based on the superior body of the instrumented segment and should be in line with the medial border of the pedicle in the medial-lateral direction and in line with the inferior end plate in the cranial-caudal direction. The screw should be laterally angulated approximately 15 degrees in the axial plane approximately 30 degrees caudally in the sagittal plane. The screw should end in the inferolateral quadrant of the pedicle on the AP radiograph and at the pedicle-vertebral body junction on the lateral radiograph. 35 degrees of axial rotation is the optimal fluoroscopic view for confirming screw placement.

CONCLUSION

Ipsilateral transfacet fixation can be successfully performed in the L3-S1 segments by using the inferior end plate and medial pedicle wall of the superiorly instrumented level as anatomic landmarks in conjunction with axial and sagittal angles of insertion.

Biomechanical differences between transfacet and lateral mass screw-rod constructs for multilevel posterior cervical spine stabilization

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.

Biomechanical Comparison of a Novel Percutaneous Transfacet Device and a Traditional Posterior System for Single Level Fusion

Posterior spinal fusions are indicated for a variety of spinal disorders. Transfacet fixation minimizes soft tissue disruption and preserves the adjacent facet joint. This technique is uncommon due to concerns with biomechanical stability and proper implant placement. For these reasons, a length adjustable implant may obviate the clinical concerns but necessitates biomechanical study. This study evaluated the in vitro biomechanical stability between a novel transfacet fixation device compared with standard pedicle screws during cyclic physiologic loading in a human cadaveric model. Cadaveric L4-L5 lumbar motion segments from 16 human spines were tested in cyclic flexion/extension, lateral bending, and torsion after insertion of either transfacet fixation devices or 5.5 mm pedicle screw instrumentation. A load cell was used to measure the compressive forces on the anterior column during testing. Motion segment stiffness and anterior column compression were analyzed with a 1-way analysis of variance (P<0.05). The transfacet device demonstrated a statistically similar stiffness when compared with the pedicle screw system for each test direction. For anterior column loading during physiologic testing, there were no biomechanical differences between stabilization systems. Percutaneous transfacet fixation is an attractive surgical option for single-level spinal fusions. A biomechanical evaluation of a novel device for this application demonstrated similar stability to a pedicle screw system. The length adjustability of the device may alleviate concerns for precise device placement and the biomechanical stability may produce similar rates and quality of posterior spinal fusions.