Posterior augmentation of an anterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive fixation versus pedicle screws in vitro

Primary anterior lumbar interbody fusion, with and without posterior instrumentation: a 1,377-patient cohort from a multicenter spine registry

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbar interbody instrumentation techniques are common and effective surgical options for a variety of lumbar degenerative pathologies. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has become a versatile and powerful means of decompression, stabilization, and reconstruction. As an anterior only technique, the integrity of the posterior muscle and ligaments remain intact. Adding posterior instrumentation to ALIF is common and may confer benefits in terms of higher fusion rate but could contribute to adjacent segment degeneration due to additional rigidity. Large clinical studies comparing stand-alone ALIF with and without posterior supplementary fixation (ALIF+PSF) are lacking.

PURPOSE

To compare rates of operative nonunion and adjacent segment disease (ASD) in ALIF with or without posterior instrumentation.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Adult patients (≥18 years old) who underwent primary ALIF for lumbar degenerative pathology between levels L4 to S1 over a 12-year period. Exclusion criteria included trauma, cancer, infection, supplemental decompression, noncontiguous fusions, prior lumbar fusions, and other interbody devices.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Reoperation for nonunion and ASD compared between ALIF only and ALIF+PSF.

METHODS

Reoperations were modeled as time-to-events where the follow-up time was defined as the difference between the primary ALIF procedure and the date of the outcome of interest. Crude cumulative reoperation probabilities were reported at 5-years follow-up. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate risk of operative nonunion and for ASD adjusting for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

The study consisted of 1,377 cases; 307 ALIF only and 1070 ALIF+PSF. Mean follow-up time was 5.6 years. The 5-year crude nonunion incidence was 2.4% for ALIF only and 0.5% for ALIF+PSF; after adjustment for covariates, a lower operative nonunion risk was observed for ALIF+PSF (HR=0.22, 95% CI=0.06-0.76). Of the patients who are deemed potentially suitable for ALIF alone, one would need to add posterior instrumentation in 53 patients to prevent one case of operative nonunion at a 5-year follow-up (number needed to treat). Five-year operative ASD incidence was 4.3% for ALIF only and 6.2% for ALIF+PSF; with adjustments, no difference was observed between the cohorts (HR=0.96, 95% CI=0.54-1.71).

CONCLUSIONS

While the addition of posterior instrumentation in ALIFs is associated with lower risk of operative nonunion compared with ALIF alone, operative nonunion is rare in both techniques (<5%). Accordingly, surgeons should evaluate the added risks associated with the addition of posterior instrumentation and reserve the supplemental posterior fixation for patients that might be at higher risk for operative nonunion. Rates of operative ASD were not statistically higher with the addition of posterior instrumentation suggesting concern regarding future risk of ASD perhaps should not play a role in considering supplemental posterior instrumentation in ALIF.

Biomechanical specimen assessment by low dose biplanar X-ray study of fusion constructions using a posterior lumbar cage with integrated anchors and posterior adjunctive fixators

The objective was to compare L4/5 range of motions of fusion constructs using anchored cages. Twelve human cadaveric spine were tested in intact condition, and divided into TLIF and PLIF groups. Testing consisted in applying pure moments in flexion-extension, lateral bending and axial rotation. The computation of intersegmental motion was assessed using 3 D biplanar radiographs. In TLIF group, the addition of contralateral transfacet decreased flexion-extension motion (39%; p = 0.036) but without difference with the ipsilateral pedicle screw construction (53%; p = 0.2). In PLIF group, the addition of interspinous anchor reduced flexion-extension motion (12%; p = 0.036) but without difference with the bilateral pedicle screw construction (17%; p = 0.8).

A Biomechanical Model for Testing Cage Subsidence in Spine Specimens with Osteopenia or Osteoporosis Under Permanent Maximum Load

BACKGROUND

Intervertebral fusions in cases of reduced bone density are a tough challenge. From a biomechanical point of view, most current studies have focused on the range of motion or have shown test setups for single-component tests. Definitive setups for biomechanical testing of the primary stability of a 360° fusion using a screw-rod system and cage on osteoporotic spine are missing. The aim of this study was to develop a test stand to provide information about the bone-implant interface under reproducible conditions.

METHODS

After pretesting with artificial bone, functional spine units were tested with 360° fusion in the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion technique. The movement sequences were conducted in flexion/extension, right and left lateral bending, and right and left axial rotation on a human model with osteopenia or osteoporosis under permanent maximum load with 7.5 N-m.

RESULTS

During the testing of human cadavers, 4 vertebrae were fully tested and were inconspicuous even after radiological and macroscopic examination. One vertebra showed a subsidence of 2 mm, and 1 vertebra had a cage collapsed into the vertebra.

CONCLUSIONS

This setup is suitable for biomechanical testing of cyclical continuous loads on the spine with reduced bone quality or osteoporosis. The embedding method is stable and ensures a purely single-level setup with different trajectories, especially when using the cortical bone trajectory. Optical monitoring provides a very accurate indication of cage movement, which correlates with the macroscopic and radiological results.

Value of single-level circumferential fusion: a 10-year prospective outcomes and cost-effectiveness analysis comparing posterior facet versus pedicle screw fixation

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical and economic outcomes of facet versus pedicle screw instrumentation for single-level circumferential lumbar spinal fusion.

METHODS

Outcomes included self-assessment of back and leg pain, pain drawing, ODI, pain medication usage, and procedure success. The CEA was based on the 10-year data collected, and the base-case was from a US payer perspective. Costs included the index surgery, additional surgeries, outpatient/ED visits, and medications. To determine quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), ODI scores were used to predict SF-6D utilities. Sensitivity analyses were performed from a modified payer perspective including device costs and from a societal perspective including productivity loss. Discounted and undiscounted incremental costs and QALYs were calculated. Bootstrapping was performed to estimate the distribution of incremental costs and effects.

RESULTS

Clinical improvement was significant from pre-op to 10-year follow-up for both groups (p < 0.01 for all outcomes scales). Outcomes were significantly better for back pain and ODI for the facet versus pedicle group at all follow-up periods > 1 year (p < 0.05). In the CEA base-case, facets had more QALYs (0.68) and lower costs (- $8650) per person compared with pedicle screws. Therefore, facets were dominant (i.e., provided cost savings and greater QALYs) compared with pedicle screws. Facets had a 97% probability of being below a willingness-to-pay threshold of $20,000 per QALY gained and were estimated to be dominant over pedicle screws in 84% of the simulations.

CONCLUSION

One-level circumferential spinal fusion using facet screws was clinically superior and provided cost savings compared with pedicle screw instrumentation in the USA.

A Comparison Study of Three Posterior Fixation Strategies in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Lumbar for the Treatment of Degenerative Diseases

BACKGROUND

There are various posterior fixations utilized with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Previous studies have focused on the comparison of two fixation techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty five patients with single-level lumbar disease were included in this retrospective study. Group A was treated by TLIF with bilateral pedicle screw (BPS), Group B treated by TLIF with unilateral pedicle screw (UPS), and Group C treated by TLIF with UPS plus contralateral translaminar facet screw (UPSFS). The operative time, blood loss, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scores (JOA), and visual analog scores (VAS) were recorded. Radiographic examination was used to assess fusion rates and incidence of screw failure.

RESULTS

The blood loss and operative times were 188.69 ± 37.69 ml and 132.96.5 ± 8.69 min in BPS group, 117.27 ± 27.11 ml and 99.32 ± 12.94 min in UPS group, and 121.50 ± 22.54 ml and 112.55 ± 9.42 min in UPSFS group; UPS and UPSFS were better than BPS (P < 0.05). The mean followup time was 38.2 months. Fusion rates were - BPS group: 95.6%, UPS group: 90%, UPSFS: 95% (P > 0.05). Screw and/or rod failures were found in three groups (BPS group: 1, UPS group: 2 and UPSFS: 1, P > 0.05). The average postoperative VAS, ODI, and JOA scores of BPS, UPS, and UPSFS were improved significantly in each group compared to preoperative scores (P < 0.05); there were no significant differences between any two groups at each followup time point (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

UPSFS with TLIF is a viable treatment option that provides satisfactory clinical results; the clinical outcome and the complication rate were comparable to BPS. In addition, the invasive of UPSFS cases was comparable to UPS and better than BPS cases. For UPS, it could be used in suitable patients.

Stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion: indications, techniques, surgical outcomes and complications

INTRODUCTION

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a well-established technique to achieve lumbar spine fusion with various indications including degenerative disk disease, spondylolisthesis, recurrent disk herniation, adjacent level disease, pseudoarthrosis, as well as being used as part of the overall strategy to restore sagittal balance. ALIF can be an extremely useful tool in any spine surgeon's armamentarium. However, like any surgical procedure, proper patient selection is key to success. A solid understanding of the biomechanics, careful surgical planning, along with clear knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of stand-alone ALIF will ensure optimal clinical outcome. Stand-alone ALIF may be a suitable surgical option in carefully selected patients that can provide good clinical results and adequate fusion rates without the need for posterior instrumentation. Areas covered: A brief overview of the indications, techniques, biomechanics, surgical outcome and complications of stand-alone ALIF is provided in this article with a review of the pertinent literature. Expert commentary: In this review we discuss the clinical evidence of using a stand-alone ALIF compared to other fusion techniques of the lumbar spine. The development of interbody cages with integrated screws has increased the arthrodesis rate and improved clinical outcomes while decreasing morbidity and operative time.

Effects of Anterior Plating on Clinical Outcomes of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE

To compare surgical outcomes of patients who have undergone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with and without plating.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

In biomechanical testing, ALIF constructs supplemented with plating (ALIFP) reduce range of motion and increase construct stiffness compared with ALIF alone. However, whether ALIFP constructs translate into improved clinical outcomes over ALIF alone is unknown.

METHODS

From 2004 through 2010, 231 patients underwent ALIF with (146) or without (85) plating. Eight patients lost to follow up were excluded from final evaluation. Patients' records were evaluated retrospectively for demographics, complications, and outcomes.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 13.7 months (range, 1-108 mo), the mean Economic, Functional, and Total Prolo scores for ALIF patients were 4.23, 3.63, and 7.87, respectively. The mean Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was 24%. At a mean follow-up of 11.2 months (range, 1-93 mo), the mean Economic, Functional, and Total Prolo scores for ALIFP patients were 4.28, 3.67, and 7.95, respectively. The mean ODI was 22.9%. There was no significant difference between rate of complications or Prolo scores or ODI between the 2 groups (t test). Neither diabetes, hypertension, smoking, sex, nor age older than 55 years was significantly related to whether patients had higher Prolo scores with or without plating. Patients with a normal body mass index and ALIF had significantly better Prolo Economic scores and total scores than patients with a normal body mass index and ALIFP (P=0.04 and 0.02, independent samples t test). Patients were also stratified by surgical indication for surgery, and there was no significant difference in Prolo scores or ODI for patients who underwent ALIF alone versus ALIFP.

CONCLUSIONS

Even when stratified by indication for surgery, anterior plating does not seem to improve Prolo scores or ODI, suggesting that not all patients undergoing ALIF require plating.

Biomechanics of posterior instrumentation in L1-L3 lateral interbody fusion: Pedicle screw rod construct vs. transfacet pedicle screws

BACKGROUND

The use of pedicle screws is the gold standard for supplemental posterior fixation in lateral interbody fusion. Information about the performance of transfacet pedicle screws compared to standard pedicle screws and rods in the upper lumbar spine with or without a lateral interbody fusion device in place is limited.

METHODS

Fifteen fresh frozen human cadaveric lumbar spine segments (T12-L4) were studied using standard pure moment flexibility tests. Specimens were divided into two groups to receive either bilateral transfacet pedicle screws (n=8) or bilateral pedicle screws (n=14). Stability of each motion segment (L1-L2 and L2-L3) was evaluated intact, with posterior instrumentation with an intact disc, with posterior instrumentation and a lateral interbody fusion device in place, and following cyclic loading with the interbody device and posterior instrumentation still in place. Both raw values of motion (range of motion, lax zone and stiff zone) and normalized mobility (ratios to intact) were analyzed for each case.

FINDINGS

In terms of immediate stability, transfacet pedicle screws performed equivalent to similarly sized pedicle screws, both with intact disc and with lateral interbody fusion device in all directions of loading. Stability following cyclic loading decreased significantly during lateral bending and axial rotation.

INTERPRETATION

Posterior fixation with transfacet pedicle screws provides equivalent immediate stability to similarly sized pedicle screws. However, in the presence of a lateral interbody fusion device, pedicle screws seem to resist loosening more and may be a better option for fusion in the upper lumbar spine.

[Facet Fixation Combined with Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparative Analysis of Clinical Experience and A New Method of Surgical Treatment of Patients with Lumbar Degenerative Diseases]

Background

For the treatment of patients with degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine the technique of pedicle fixation is widespread, when after open decompression channel structure locking screws are introduced into the vertebral body through the back vertebra legs. We first used a fundamentally new way of fixing the rear using the facet-boards Cage «Facet Wedge», when posterior fixation is done by closing the facet joints with minimally invasive, percutaneous method. We have not found data on the clinical efficacy of facet fixation in scientific literature.

Aims

To compare the clinical efficacy of facet fixation combined with interbody fusion in the treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease.

Materials and Methods

The study included 145 patients who were divided into 2 groups. The study group with long-term observation included patients (n=100) who underwent a new method for lumbar fixation; the method comprises unilateral or bilateral implantation of titanium Cage «facet Wedge» in the joint space facet joint in combination with the anterior, lateral, and transforaminal interbody fusion. Clinical comparison group (n=45) included retrospectively recruited patients who were performed titanium pedicle screw installation after open decompression and interbody fusion posterior lumbar fixation. Dynamic observation and comprehensive evaluation of the treatment clinical results was carried out for 18 months after surgery.

Results

Cage facet installation technology is quite simple, universal for the stabilization of the rear of the complex after interbody fusion from the front, side, and rear access; and does not require the intraoperative application of expensive high-tech equipment. Comparative analysis of the main group showed significantly better results in terms of the duration of the operation [CG 125 (90; 140) min, the CCG 205 (160; 220) min; p=0.01], the volume of blood loss [CG 80 (70; 120) ml, CCG 350 (300; 550) ml; p=0.008], activation time [CG 2 (1; 2) days, 4 CCG (3; 5) days; p=0.02], length of hospitalization [CG 9 (10; 11) days, the CCG 13 (12; 15) days; p=0.03], the level of pain on a visual analog scale [CG 3 (2; 4) mm, CCG 15 (12; 18) mm; p=0.001], quality of life (by index Oswestry) [CG 8 (6; 8) points, the CCG 23 (20; 28) points, p=0.003], and labor rehabilitation [CG 3 (2; 6) months, CCG 9 (6; 12) months; p=0.0001]. The number of postoperative complications in group 1 was 13%, in the 2nd ― 31,1% (p=0,0012). The new method involves fixing the back with considerably less surgical trauma of paravertebral soft tissue that results in early activation of patients, reduction of stay in hospital period, and better functional recovery of patients.

Conclusions

The application of facet fixation combined with interbody fusion in the treatment of patients with degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine allows achieving the best clinical outcomes and fewer postoperative complications during the short and long-term follow-up if compared with the traditional method of transpedicular stabilization. The combination of low-impact and reliability facet fixation techniques for posterior stabilization of the operated segment creates favorable conditions for the restoration of a functional condition of patients, full social and physical rehabilitation.

A biomechanical comparison of 3 different posterior fixation techniques for 2-level lumbar spinal disorders

OBJECT

This study sought to make a biomechanical comparison of 3 different posterior fixation techniques for 2-level lumbar spinal disorders.

METHODS

Eight fresh-frozen human cadaver lumbar spines (4 from L-1 to L-5, 4 from L-1 to S-1) were tested by applying pure moments of ± 8 Nm. Each specimen was first tested intact, and then the left facetectomies of L3-4 and L4-5 were performed to establish an unstable condition without removal of discs. Three instrumentation systems were then tested randomly: unilateral pedicle screw (UPS), UPS with contralateral translaminar facet screw (UPSFS), and bilateral pedicle screw (BPS). The range of motion (ROM) and the neutral zone (NZ) of L3-5 were measured.

RESULTS

All fixation types could reduce the ROM of L3-5 significantly in flexion, extension, and lateral bending, compared with the intact state. In axial torsion, only BPS reduced the ROM significantly, compared with the intact state. The UPSFS technique provided intermediate stability, which was superior to the UPS in flexion-extension and lateral bending, and inferior to the BPS in lateral bending. Compared with the intact state, the NZs decreased significantly for UPS, UPSFS, and BPS in flexion-extension, while not significantly in lateral bending and axial torsion.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, among the 3 fixation techniques, BPS offered the highest stability, UPSFS provided intermediate stability, and UPS was the least stable for 2-level lumbar spinal disorders. UPSFS appeared to be able to offer a less invasive choice than BPS in well-selected patients with 2-level lumbar spinal disorders.

Biomechanical characteristics of an integrated lumbar interbody fusion device

Introduction

We hypothesized that an Integrated Lumbar Interbody Fusion Device (PILLAR SA, Orthofix, Lewisville, TX) will function biomechanically similar to a traditional anterior interbody spacer (PILLAR AL, Orthofix, Lewisville, TX) plus posterior instrumentation (FIREBIRD, Orthofix, Lewisville, TX). Purpose of this study was to determine if an Integrated Interbody Fusion Device (PILLAR SA) can stabilize single motion segments as well as an anterior interbody spacer (PILLAR AL) + pedicle screw construct (FIREBIRD).

Methods

Eight cadaveric lumbar spines (age: 43.9±4.3 years) were used. Each specimen's range of motion was tested in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) under intact condition, after L4-L5 PILLAR SA with intervertebral screws and after L4-L5 360° fusion (PILLAR AL + Pedicle Screws and rods (FIREBIRD). Each specimen was tested in flexion (8Nm) and extension (6Nm) without preload (0 N) and under 400N of preload, in lateral bending (±6 Nm) and axial rotation (±5 Nm) without preload.

Results

Integrated fusion using the PILLAR SA device demonstrated statistically significant reductions in range of motion of the L4-L5 motion segment as compared to the intact condition for each test direction. PILLAR SA reduced ROM from 8.9±1.9 to 2.9±1.1° in FE with 400N follower preload (67.4%), 8.0±1.7 to 2.5±1.1° in LB, and 2.2±1.2 to 0.7±0.3° in AR. A comparison between the PILLAR SA integrated fusion device versus 360° fusion construct with spacer and bilateral pedicle screws was statistically significant in FE and LB. The 360° fusion yielded motion of 1.0±0.5° in FE, 1.0±0.8° in LB (p0.05).

Conclusions

The PILLAR SA resulted in motions of less than 3° in all modes of motion and was not as motion restricting as the traditional 360° using bilateral pedicle screws. The residual segmental motions compare very favorably with published biomechanical studies of other interbody integrated fusion devices.

Biomechanical evaluation of the Facet Wedge: a refined technique for facet fixation

PURPOSE

Purpose of this paper is to evaluate the primary stability of a new approach for facet fixation the so-called Facet Wedge (FW) in comparison with established posterior fixation techniques like pedicle screws (PS) and translaminar facet screws (TLS) with and without anterior cage interposition.

METHODS

Twenty-four monosegmental fresh frozen non-osteoporotic human motion segments (L2-L3 and L4-L5) were tested in a two-arm biomechanical study using a robot-based spine tester. Facet Wedge was compared with pedicle screws and translaminar screws as a stand-alone device and in combination with an anterior fusion cage.

RESULTS

Pedicle screws, FW and translaminar screws could stabilize an intact motion segment effectively. Facet Wedge was comparable to PS for lateral bending, extension and flexion and slightly superior for axial rotation. Facet Wedge showed a superior kinematic capacity compared to translaminar screws.

CONCLUSIONS

Facet Wedge offers a novel posterior approach in achieving primary stability in lumbar spinal fixation. The results of the present study showed that the Facet Wedge has a comparable primary stability to pedicle screws and potential advantages over translaminar screws.

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using unilateral pedicle screw fixation plus contralateral translaminar facet screw fixation in lumbar degenerative diseases

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has been used in lumbar degenerative diseases. Some researchers have applied unilateral fixation in TLIF to reduce operational trauma without compromising the clinical outcome, but it is always suspected biomechanically unstable. The supplementary contralateral translaminar facet screw (cTLFS) seemed to be able to overcome the inherent drawbacks of unilateral pedicle screw (uPS) fixation theoretically. This study evaluates the safety, feasibility and efficacy of TLIF using uPS with cTLFS fixation in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

50 patients (29 male) underwent the aforementioned surgical technique for their LDD between December 2009 and April 2012. The results were evaluated based on visual analogue scale (VAS) of the leg and back, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were recorded. The radiographic examinations in form of X-ray, computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging was done preoperatively and 1 week, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months postoperatively. The student t-test was used for comparison between the preoperative values and postoperative counterparts. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

Among 50 patients, 22 received one level fusion and 28 two level's, with corresponding operation time and estimated blood loss being approximately 90 min, 150 ml and 120 min, 200 ml, respectively. No severe complications happened perioperatively. The mean VAS (back, leg) scores dropped from (7.6, 7.5) preoperatively to (2.1, 0.6) at 12 months' followup, ODI from 49.1 preoperatively to 5.6 and JOA score raised from 10.6 preoperatively to 28.5, all P < 0.001, suggesting of good clinical outcome. From the three-dimensional reconstructed CT, 62 out of 70 segments displayed solid fusion with fusion rate of 88.6% at 12 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

TLIF using uPS fixation plus cTLFS fixation is a safe, feasible and effective technique in the treatment of one or two level lumbar degenerative diseases short termly.

Outcomes of posterior facet versus pedicle screw fixation of circumferential fusion: a cohort study

PURPOSE

To compare single-level circumferential spinal fusion using pedicle (n = 27) versus low-profile minimally invasive facet screw (n = 35) posterior instrumentation.

METHOD

A prospective two-arm cohort study with 5-year outcomes as follow-up was conducted. Assessment included back and leg pain, pain drawing, Oswestry disability index (ODI), pain medication usage, self-assessment of procedure success, and >1-year postoperative lumbar magnetic resonance imaging.

RESULTS

Significantly less operative time, estimated blood loss and costs were incurred for the facet group. Clinical improvement was significant for both groups (p < 0.01 for all outcomes scales). Outcomes were significantly better for back pain and ODI for the facet relative to the pedicle group at follow-up periods >1 year (p < 0.05). Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging found that 20 % had progressive adjacent disc degeneration, and posterior muscle changes tended to be greater for the pedicle screw group.

CONCLUSION

One-level circumferential spinal fusion using facet screws proved superior to pedicle screw instrumentation.

Managing design excellence tools during the development of new orthopaedic implants

Design excellence (DEX) tools have been widely used for years in some industries for their potential to facilitate new product development. The medical sector, targeted by cost pressures, has therefore started adopting them. Numerous tools are available; however only appropriate deployment during the new product development stages can optimize the overall process. The primary study objectives were to describe generic tools and illustrate their implementation and management during the development of new orthopaedic implants, and compile a reference package. Secondary objectives were to present the DEX tool investment costs and savings, since the method can require significant resources for which companies must carefully plan. The publicly available DEX method "Define Measure Analyze Design Verify Validate" was adopted and implemented during the development of a new spinal implant. Several tools proved most successful at developing the correct product, addressing clinical needs, and increasing market penetration potential, while reducing design iterations and manufacturing validations. Cost analysis and Pugh Matrix coupled with multi generation planning enabled developing a strong rationale to activate the project, set the vision and goals. improved risk management and product map established a robust technical verification-validation program. Design of experiments and process quantification facilitated design for manufacturing of critical features, as early as the concept phase. Biomechanical testing with analysis of variance provided a validation model with a recognized statistical performance baseline. Within those tools, only certain ones required minimum resources (i.e., business case, multi generational plan, project value proposition, Pugh Matrix, critical To quality process validation techniques), while others required significant investments (i.e., voice of customer, product usage map, improved risk management, design of experiments, biomechanical testing techniques). All used techniques provided savings exceeding investment costs. Some other tools were considered and found less relevant. A matrix summarized the investment costs and generated estimated savings. Globally, all companies can benefit from using DEX by smartly selecting and estimating those tools with best return on investment at the start of the project. For this, a good understanding of the available company resources, background and development strategy are needed. In conclusion, it was possible to illustrate that appropriate management of design excellence tools can greatly facilitate the development of new orthopaedic implant systems.

Which posterior instrumentation is better for two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion: translaminar facet screw or pedicle screw?

PURPOSE

To determine whether translaminar facet screws can provide stability equivalent to pedicle screws and whether the two posterior instrumentations have the same influence on the adjacent segments in two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

METHODS

In a biomechanical study conducted, we used 12 fresh human lumbar spines and tested an intact spine with a stand-alone two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion and anterior fusion augmented with pedicle screws or translaminar facet screws, under 400 N compressive preloads and 7.5 N m moments in flexion, extension, axial rotation and lateral bending, and measured the stiffness of the operated level, range of motion and intradiscal pressure at the adjacent levels.

RESULTS

We found a significant increase in the stiffness of the segments operated, range of motion and intradiscal pressure at the adjacent superior segment in the stand-alone two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion during flexion, axial rotation and lateral bending, but a decrease in extension, when compared with the intact spine. The stiffness of operated segments, range of motion and intradiscal pressure in the adjacent segment are significantly higher in the two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion augmented with posterior instrumentation than in the stand-alone two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion. There was no significant difference between the two augmented constructs except that, at the adjacent superior segment, the intradiscal pressure was more in the construction augmented with a pedicle screw than with a translaminar facet screw in flexion.

CONCLUSIONS

Translaminar facet screws can provide stability equivalent to pedicle screws, but their influence on the adjacent segments is relatively lower; therefore, we suggest that translaminar facet screws be the choice in the optimal posterior instrumentation in a two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Artrodesis circunferencial: Plif más tornillos translaminofacetarios

OBJETIVO: Evaluar el resultado clínico y radiológico de 10 pacientes operados por patología degenerativa lumbar, en los que se les realizó artrodesis intersomática con injerto óseo tricortical de cresta ilíaca y artrodesis posterolateral instrumentada con tornillos translaminofacetarios. MÉTODOS: Se evaluaron 10 pacientes, 4 hombres y 6 mujeres operados por el mismo cirujano entre junio de 2006 y diciembre de 2007. RESULTADOS: Se obtuvo un significativo descenso de la discapacidad y del dolor (según las escalas de Oswestry y la escala visual analógica), obteniéndose una tasa de fusión del 100% al año de seguimiento. CONCLUSIONES: Los resultados clínicos y radiológicos de este estudio establecen a éste procedimiento como confiable, de bajo costo y baja morbilidad, con una alta tasa de fusión y buenos resultados clínicos.

Biomechanical evaluation of stand-alone lumbar polyether-ether-ketone interbody cage with integrated screws

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Stand-alone interbody cages with integrated screws potentially provide a biomechanically stable solution for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) that alleviates the need for additional exposure for supplemental fixation, thereby reducing the chance of additional complications and morbidity.

PURPOSE

To compare the stability of a stand-alone anterior interbody fusion system with integrated fixation screws against traditional supplemental fixation methods and to evaluate the difference between three and four fixation screws in the stand-alone cage.

STUDY DESIGN

In vitro cadaveric biomechanical study.

METHODS

Eight cadaveric lumbar spines (L2-sacrum) were tested using a flexibility protocol consisting of three cycles to ±7.5 Nm in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. The conditions evaluated were intact spine; polyether-ether-ketone cage (zero integrated screws) at L4-L5; cage (zero screws)+bilateral pedicle screws (PS); cage (three screws); cage (four screws); cage (zero screws)+anterior plate; and cage (three screws)+spinous process plate. Motion at the index level was assessed using an optoelectronic system.

RESULTS

The cage without integrated screws reduced the motion in flexion-extension and lateral bending (p<.001) compared with that in the intact spine. In axial rotation, mean range of motion (ROM) was 8% greater than in intact spine (p>.962). The addition of three integrated screws reduced ROM significantly compared with the cage without screws in all motion planes (p<.001). A fourth screw had no statistically significant effect on the ROM, although there was a trend toward less motion with four screws compared with three. In flexion-extension, the cage with three integrated screws and the spinous process plate was the most rigid condition. There was no significant difference from the bilateral PS (p=.537); however, this was more rigid than all other conditions (p<.024). The most stable condition in lateral bending and axial rotation was the cage with bilateral PS. In lateral bending, the cage (three or four screws) was not significantly different from the cage with anterior plate or the cage (three screws) with spinous process plate fixation; however, only the latter condition was statistically comparable with bilateral PS. In axial rotation, there were no significant differences between the conditions that included integrated screws or supplemental fixation (p>.081).

CONCLUSIONS

Biomechanical testing revealed that the stand-alone cage with integrated screws provides more immediate stability than a cage alone and provides equivalent stability to ALIF constructs with supplemental fixation in lateral bending and axial rotation. Additional flexion-extension rigidity of the anterior cage maybe realized by the addition of a spinous process plate that was found to be as stable as supplemental bilateral PS.

Biomechanical comparison of supplemental posterior fixations for two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion

Posterior instrumentations have been used to supplement anterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages. Biomechanical studies on single-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion show that stand-alone cages supplemented with posterior translaminar facet or transfacet screw fixation exhibit comparable stability to those supplemented with pedicle screw/rod fixation, while stability of multilevel anterior lumbar interbody fusion remains mostly unknown. The objectives of this study are to compare the stabilization of three supplemental posterior fixations to two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion, including translaminar facet fixation, transfacet screw fixation, and pedicle screw/rod fixation. Flexibility tests were conducted on fresh-frozen calf spines with moment up to 8.5 N m in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Each specimen was tested at three stages: intact, anterior lumbar interbody fusion using Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody cage at L3–L4 and L4–L5, and the same anterior lumbar interbody fusion plus one of the three supplemental posterior fixations. The addition of the supplemental posterior fixation increased stiffness at the fusion levels significantly in flexion (9.9 times), extension (5.4 times), and lateral bending (4.1 times). The pedicle screw/rod and translaminar screw fixations provide approximately 40% higher stiffness than the transfacet screw in lateral bending. The pedicle screw/rod fixation also displayed a trend of superior fixation in extension. Supplemental posterior fixation significantly improved stability of two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion when compared to the stand-alone cages. Pedicle screw/rod system is still the “gold standard” in providing supplemental stability. However, both translaminar facet screws and transfacet screws are good alternatives to provide adequate fixation.

Role of facet joints in spine pain and image-guided treatment: a review

Chronic low back and neck pain remain prevalent medical concerns, with much debate regarding the effective evaluation and treatment. Facet disease has been implicated as a source of axial nonradiating low back pain. We discuss patient evaluation, the role of imaging, current and emerging image-guided therapies for facet-related pain, and the increasing importance of outcome-related research in this arena.

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.

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion with stand-alone interbody cage in treatment of lumbar intervertebral foraminal stenosis : comparative study of two different types of cages

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective study was performed to evaluate the clinical and radiological results of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) using two different stand-alone cages in the treatment of lumbar intervertebral foraminal stenosis (IFS).

METHODS

A total of 28 patients who underwent ALIF at L5-S1 using stand-alone cage were studied [Stabilis(R) (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA); 13, SynFix-LR(R) (Synthes Bettlach, Switzerland); 15]. Mean follow-up period was 27.3 +/- 4.9 months. Visual analogue pain scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were assessed. Radiologically, the change of disc height, intervertebral foraminal (IVF) height and width at the operated segment were measured, and fusion status was defined.

RESULTS

Final mean VAS (back and leg) and ODI scores were significantly decreased from preoperative values (5.6 +/- 2.3 --> 2.3 +/- 2.2, 6.3 +/- 3.2 --> 1.6 +/- 1.6, and 53.7 +/- 18.6 --> 28.3 +/- 13.1, respectively), which were not different between the two devices groups. In Stabilis(R) group, postoperative immediately increased disc and IVF heights (10.09 +/- 4.15 mm --> 14.99 +/- 1.73 mm, 13.00 +/- 2.44 mm --> 16.28 +/- 2.23 mm, respectively) were gradually decreased, and finally returned to preoperative value (11.29 +/- 1.67 mm, 13.59 +/- 2.01 mm, respectively). In SynFix-LR(R) group, immediately increased disc and IVF heights (9.60 +/- 2.82 mm --> 15.61 +/- 0.62 mm, 14.01 +/- 2.53 mm --> 21.27 +/- 1.93 mm, respectively) were maintained until the last follow up (13.72 +/- 1.21 mm, 17.87 +/- 2.02 mm, respectively). The changes of IVF width of each group was minimal pre- and postoperatively. Solid arthrodesis was observed in 11 patients in Stabilis group (11/13, 84.6%) and 13 in SynFix-LR(R) group (13/15, 86.7%).

CONCLUSION

ALIF using stand-alone cage could assure good clinical results in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar IFS in the mid-term follow up. A degree of subsidence at the operated segment was different depending on the device type, which was higher in Stabilis(R) group.

A prospective, cohort study comparing translaminar screw fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation for fusion of the degenerative lumbar spine

In a prospective observational study we compared the two-year outcome of lumbar fusion by a simple technique using translaminar screws (n = 57) with a more extensive method using transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicular screw fixation (n = 63) in consecutive patients with degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Outcome was assessed using the validated multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index. Blood loss and operating time were significantly lower in the translaminar screw group (p < 0.01). The complication rates were similar in each group (2% to 4%). In all, 91% of the patients returned their questionnaire at two-years. The groups did not differ in Core Outcome Measures Index score reduction, 3.6 (sd 2.5) (translaminar screws) vs 4.0 (sd 2.8) (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.39); ‘good’ global outcomes, 78% (translaminar screws) vs 78% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.99) or satisfaction with treatment, 82% (translaminar screws) vs 86% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.52).

The two fusion techniques differed markedly in their extent and the cost of the implants, but were associated with almost identical patient-orientated outcomes.

Extensive three-point stabilisation is not always required to achieve satisfactory patient-orientated results at two years.

Interbody device endplate engagement effects on motion segment biomechanics

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Stand-alone nonbiologic interbody fusion devices for the lumbar spine have been used for interbody fusion since the early 1990s. However, most devices lack the stability found in clinically successful circumferential fusion constructs. Stability results from cage geometry and device/vertebral endplate interface integrity. To date, there has not been a published comparative biomechanical study specifically evaluating the effects of endplate engagement of interbody devices.

PURPOSE

Lumbar motion segments implanted with three different interbody devices were tested biomechanically to compare the effects of endplate engagement on motion segment rigidity. The degree of additional effect of supplemental posterior and anterior fixation was also investigated.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A cadaveric study of interbody fusion devices with varying degrees of endplate interdigitation.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Implanted motion segment range of motion (ROM), neutral zone (NZ), stiffness, and disc height.

METHODS

Eighteen human L23 and L45 motion segments were distributed into three interbody groups (n=6 each) receiving a polymeric (polyetheretherketone) interbody spacer with small ridges; a modular interbody device with endplate spikes (InFix, Abbott Spine, Austin, TX, USA); or dual tapered threaded interbody cages (LT [Lordotic tapered] cage; Medtronic, Memphis, TN, USA). Specimens were tested intact using a 7.5-Nm flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial torsion flexibility protocol. Testing was repeated after implantation of the interbody device, anterior plate fixation, and posterior interpedicular fixation. Radiographic measurements determined changes in disc height and intervertebral lordosis. ROM and NZ were calculated and compared using analysis of variance.

RESULTS

The interbody cages with endplate spikes or threads provided a statistically greater increase in disc height versus the polymer spacer (p=.01). Relative to intact, all stand-alone devices significantly reduced ROM in lateral bending by a mean 37% to 61% (p< or =.001). The cages with endplate spikes or threads reduced ROM by approximately 50% and NZ by approximately 60% in flexion-extension (p< or =.02). Only the cage with endplate spikes provided a statistically significant reduction in axial torsion ROM compared with the intact state (50% decrease, p<.001). Posterior fixation provided a significant reduction in ROM in all directions versus the interbody device alone (p<.001). Anterior plating decreased ROM over interbody device alone in flexion-extension and torsion but did not have additional effect on lateral bending ROM.

CONCLUSION

The cages with endplate spikes or threads provide substantial motion segment rigidity compared with intact in bending modes. Only the cages with endplate spikes were more rigid than intact in torsion. All devices experienced increased rigidity with anterior plating and even greater rigidity with posterior fixation. It appears that the endplate engagement with spikes may be beneficial in limiting torsion, which is generally difficult with other "stand-alone" devices tested in the current and prior reports.

Mature runt cow lumbar intradiscal pressures and motion segment biomechanics

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The optimal animal model for in vivo testing of spinal implants, particularly total or partial disc replacement devices, has not yet been determined. Mechanical and morphological similarities of calf and human spines have been reported; however, limitations of the calf model include open growth plates and oversized vertebrae with growth. Mature runt cows (Corrientes breed) may avoid these limitations.

PURPOSE

This study compared vertebral morphology and biomechanical properties of human and runt cow lumbar motion segments.

STUDY DESIGN

In vivo disc pressure measurements were obtained in six mature runt cows at L4-L5. In vitro evaluation was performed on these same segments and repeated on 12 human motion segments.

METHODS

Disc pressures were measured in vivo in runt cow (Corrientes breed) L45 discs using a percutaneous transducer with the animal performing various activities. These motion segments were then harvested and morphologic and biomechanical evaluations (disc pressure in compression, flexibility tests to 7.5Nm) were performed on both cow and male human L23 and L45 segments.

RESULTS

The transverse lumbar disc dimensions were slightly smaller for (mixed gender) cow versus (male) humans, but were within the range of reported (mixed gender) human values. The mean+/-SD disc height was smaller for runt cow (7+/-1mm) versus human discs (13+/-2mm, p<.001). The vertebral bodies of the cow were approximately twice as tall as the human. In vitro testing revealed significantly greater disc pressure response to applied axial loading in the runt cow versus humans (1.27+/-0.18 vs. 0.84+/-0.15kPa/N, respectively) but similar overall stiffness (2.15+/-0.71 vs. 1.91+/-0.94kN/mm, respectively). Runt cow and human segment flexibility curves were similar with the following exceptions: runt cow stiffness was approximately 40% greater in torsion (p<.05), runt cow segment lateral bending motion was greater versus humans (range of motion by 30%, neutral zone by 100%; both p<.05), and flexion range of motion tended to be smaller in runt cow versus human specimens (by approximately 40%, p=NS). In vivo, the standing disc pressure in the runt cow was 0.80+/-0.24MPa.

CONCLUSIONS

Although no animal replicates the human motion segment, the runt cow lumbar spine had a number of biomechanical and morphological measurements within the range of human values. The closed physes and temporally stable morphology of the mature runt cow may make this model more suitable versus standard calf models for human intradiscal implant studies.

Finite element analysis of anterior lumbar interbody fusion: threaded cylindrical cage and pedicle screw fixation

STUDY DESIGN

Pedicle screw fixation (PSF) has been used for the setting of a lumbar interbody fusion.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate analytically the effects of additional PSF to the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with the cylindrical cages (Ray TFC) in the immediate postoperative state.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

An addition of PSF to the stand-alone ALIF increases segmental stiffness.

METHODS

A finite element model of ALIF (L4,-L5) was constructed. Finite element analyses were performed to investigate relative motion and bone stress at the bone-cage interface. The results were then compared with those of the stand-alone ALIF. Bone stress surrounding pedicle screws was also predicted.

RESULTS

An addition of PSF to the stand-alone ALIF led to higher segmental stiffness, smaller relative motion, smaller bone deformation, and lower bone stress level at the cage-bone interface. The bone stress level at the interface reduced substantially during extension. The bone stress level at the bone-screw tip interface was much lower than that of the bone-cage interface. The articulating facet had no significant load-bearing capacity because of stiff PSF. Little gap opening at the bone-cage interface was found during a compressive preload over 400 N; an excessive extension without preload caused considerable gap opening. Slip less than 0.15 mm occurred during all the loading modes except axial rotation; an excessive axial rotation caused to slip over 0.15 mm.

CONCLUSION

Geometric constraints caused by PSF will reduce substantially the bone stress level and the relative motion, and therefore be more likely to allow bone ingrowth at the bone-cage interface, compared with the stand-alone ALIF. The use of pedicle screw stabilization would have significant beneficial effects on the rate of interbody fusion, regardless of whether ALIF or PLIF was used.

Computed tomography–guided percutaneous facet screw fixation in the lumbar spine

✓ The authors describe a new minimally invasive technique for posterior supplementation using percutaneous trans-laminar facet screw (TFS) fixation with computed tomography (CT) guidance. Oblique axial images were used to determine facet screw fixation sites. After the induction of local anesthesia and conscious sedation, a guide pin was inserted and guided with a laser mounted on the CT gantry. Cannulated TFSs were placed via a percutaneous approach. From December 2002 to August 2003, 18 patients underwent CT-guided TFS. In 17 of these patients this procedure was supplementary to anterior lumbar interbody fusion, which had been performed several days earlier; in the remaining patient, CT-guided TFS fixation was undertaken as the primary therapy. Twelve patients had painful degenerative disc disease or unstable degenerative spondylolisthesis, three had infections, and three had deformities. All screws were inserted accurately and there were no complications. This new minimally invasive surgical technique may offer an alternative to pedicle screw fixation as a method of posterior supplementation.

Stand-alone anterior lumbar discectomy and fusion with plate: initial experience

BACKGROUND

The stability of the lumbar spine after ALIF with lateral plate fixation and/or posterior fixation has previously been investigated; however, stand-alone ALDF with plate has not. Previous clinical studies have demonstrated poor fusion rates with stand-alone anterior interbody fusion in the absence of posterior instrumentation. We review our initial experience with stand-alone ALDF with segmental plate fixation for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and compare these results with our experience with traditional ALIF and supplemental posterior instrumentation.

METHODS

Forty-nine patients treated at the University of California, San Francisco between 2002 and 2005 were included in this analysis. The study was retrospective in nature. All patients presented with discogram-positive back pain and had failed conservative treatment. Twenty-four patients underwent ALDF with plate, and 25 underwent ALIF with posterior instrumentation. Patients underwent flexion/extension imaging at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. All patients completed ODI and VAS questionnaires at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS

Average follow-up was 11.6 and 21.7 months in the ALDF with plate and ALIF with instrumentation groups, respectively. All patients demonstrated radiographic evidence of fusion at last follow-up. None developed instability at the fusion level, and none developed hardware failure (plate back-out, screw lucency, etc). Average subsidence at 6 months postoperatively was 2.2 and 2.5 mm, respectively. The VAS and ODI scores are presented in Tables 3 and 4.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary results of stand-alone ALDF with plate suggest it may be safe and effective for the surgical treatment of patients with degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. Long-term follow-up is clearly needed. Subsidence is diminished with ALDF and plating compared with ALIF with posterior instrumentation. It is unclear at this time which subset of patients may ultimately require posterior hardware supplementation, but those with circumferential stenosis or severe facet disease are not ideal candidates for ALDF with plate. For some patients in whom lumbar arthroplasty is not indicated, or as a salvage procedure, ALDF with plate may be a satisfactory alternative and may eliminate the need for a supplemental posterior procedure.

Augmentation of an anterior lumbar interbody fusion with an anterior plate or pedicle screw fixation: a comparative biomechanical in vitro study

OBJECT

Posterior pedicle screw (PS) instrumentation is often used to augment anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) but at the cost of an increase in the morbidity rate due to the second approach and screw placement. If anterior plates were found to be biomechanically equivalent to PS fixation (PSF) after ALIF, then this second approach could be avoided without decreasing vertebral stability.

METHODS

Eight cadaveric L5-S1 spinal segments were tested under four conditions: intact, following anterior discectomy and interbody spacer placement, after placement of an anterior plate, and following PSF. The elastic zone and stiffness were calculated for axial compression, flexion/extension, lateral bending, and torsion. Neither anterior plate stabilization nor PSF showed significant intergroup differences in stiffness or the elastic zone. Both exhibited greater stiffness in flexion than the intact specimens (p < 0.001). Pedicle screw fixation was associated with a decreased elastic zone in lateral bending compared with the intact specimen (p < 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Anterior plate fixation is biomechanically similar to PSF following ALIF. Surgeons may wish to use anterior plates in place of PSs to avoid the need for a posterior procedure. This may lead to a decrease in operative morbidity and improved overall outcomes.

In Vitro Comparison of Bioresorbable and Titanium Anterior Cervical Plates in the Immediate Postoperative Condition

Bioresorbable plates have recently been used with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Compared with metallic plates, bioresorbable plates provide segmental stabilization with minimal imaging artifact, eventual resorption, and increased load sharing. The objectives of the present study were to determine whether a bioresorbable plate can withstand simulated physiologic static and cyclic loading, to compare the reduction in flexibility provided by bioresorbable and titanium plates, and to quantify load sharing between the plate and spine with graft. Sixteen human cervical motion segments were tested to +/-2.5 Nm in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Range of motion (ROM) was measured (1) in the intact state, (2) with ACDF without plating, (3) after addition of either a bioresorbable or titanium plate, and (4) after 500 cycles of combined flexion-extension and axial torsion. Load sharing was evaluated by applying the same fixed rotation both without and with the plate, and was calculated as the moment resisted by the uninstrumented ACDF expressed as a percentage of the plated ACDF state. No plate failures or graft migration occurred during testing. Compared with the uninstrumented ACDF, bioresorbable plates reduced mean ROM by 49% in flexion-extension and 25% in lateral bending, with very little change in torsion. Titanium plates reduced uninstrumented ACDF ROM by 69% in flexion-extension, 45% in lateral bending, and 27% in torsion. Differences between bioresorbable and titanium plates were significant in flexion-extension and lateral bending. Cyclic loading did not significantly change ROM for either plate. More moment was shared in lateral bending by the spine/graft with bioresorbable plates (78%) compared with titanium plating (63%). Bioresorbable plates contained an intervertebral graft, provided some stabilization, remained intact throughout the simulated immediate postoperative loading, and shared more load with the graft and osteoligamentous spine than titanium plates.

In vitro fixator rod loading after transforaminal compared to anterior lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND

Cages are commonly used to assist lumbar interbody fusion. They are implanted from various approaches. In many cases internal fixators are added to provide sufficient stability. However, how the rods of these fixators are loaded and whether the kind of approach affects these loads is still unknown. The aim of this in vitro study therefore was to determine the loads acting on fixator rods and cages after anterior compared to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

METHODS

Six intact human lumbar spine specimens (L1-5) were loaded in a spine tester with pure moments (+/-7.5 N m) in the frontal, sagittal and transverse plane. Loading was repeated, first, after the segments L2-3 and L4-5 were instrumented either with an anterior or a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage "stand alone" and, second, after additional stabilisation with an internal fixator. The rods of the fixator and the four "corners" of the cages were instrumented with strain gauges.

FINDINGS

The loads transmitted through the rods were highest in lateral bending. In this loading direction an axial distraction force of in median up to 140 N, an axial compression force of up to 100 N, and a resultant bending moment of up to 1.1 N m were measured in each rod. These loads tended to be lower for the anterior compared to the transforaminal approach. For comparison, the load applied was +/-7.5 N m. The axial strains recorded in the four "corners" of the cages considerably varied from one specimen to the other. Differences in cage strain between the two approaches could not be detected.

INTERPRETATION

The loads acting on the rods of the fixator were small compared to the load that was applied. Thus, other structures such as the cages or the facet joints still play an important role in load transfer. The type of approach (anterior or transforaminal) had only little effect on the loading of the rods. This also applies to the local loading of the cages, which probably more depends on the fit between cage and endplates and on the local stiffness properties of the adjacent vertebral bodies.

In vitro stabilizing effect of a transforaminal compared with two posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages

STUDY DESIGN

An in vitro biomechanical flexibility test on different lumbar interbody fusion cages using monosegmental lumbar spine specimens.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the stabilizing effect of a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cage compared with two established posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) cages.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

TLIF using interbody fusion cages is gaining more and more popularity in the treatment of degenerative disc disease. However, only little is known on its biomechanical behavior.

METHODS

Eighteen intact human lumbar spine segments were tested for flexibility in a specially designed spine tester. Pure moments were applied in the three main planes, and range of motion and neutral zone were determined. Then, TLIF using the sickle-shaped MOON cage (AMT AG), PLIF using the cubic Stryker cages (Stryker Orthopaedics), or PLIF using the threaded BAK cages (Zimmer Spinetech) was carried out and the specimens tested again.

RESULTS

The stability after implantation of the MOON TLIF cage did not significantly differ from that after implantation of the cubic Stryker PLIF cages (P > 0.05). In contrast, the threaded BAK PLIF cages had a significantly higher primary stability than both the MOON TLIF and the Stryker PLIF cages in lateral bending, flexion, and extension (P < 0.05) but not in axial rotation (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of its stabilizing effect, TLIF using the MOON cage can be recommended as an alternative to PLIF using the cubic Stryker cages. Compared with the threaded BAK PLIF cages, however, the MOON TLIF cage provides a lower primary stability in lateral bending, flexion, and extension.

In vitro, biomechanical comparison of an anterior lumbar interbody fusion with an anteriorly placed, low-profile lumbar plate and posteriorly placed pedicle screws or translaminar screws

STUDY DESIGN

An in vitro biomechanical comparison of anteriorly placed lumbar plates, pedicle screws, and translaminar screws in the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) setting.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether an anteriorly placed lumbar plate reduces the flexibility in terms of neutral zone and range of motion of a simulated ALIF, and to compare this reduction in flexibility to that provided by posteriorly placed pedicle screws and translaminar screws.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Pedicular and translaminar facet fixation add stability and increase fusion rates, compared with ALIF alone. An anteriorly placed lumbar plate has been introduced to provide stability without the need for a secondary approach. However, this plate has not been evaluated biomechanically.

METHODS

Seven intact, cadaveric lumbar motion segments were tested to +/- 7.5 Nm in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial torsion. Specimens were retested after ALIF, and after subsequent instrumentation with pedicle screws, translaminar screws, and anterior lumbar plates. The range of motion and neutral zone were measured from resulting flexibility curves.

RESULTS

Mean (+/- standard deviation) flexion-extension range of motion for intact segments (9.9 degrees +/- 3.1 degrees ) was significantly reduced to 7.7 degrees +/- 1.8 degrees after ALIF (P = 0.02), and was further reduced to 3.0 degrees +/- 0.9 degrees with lumbar plates (P < 0.001), 1.5 degrees +/- 0.6 degrees with pedicle screws (P < 0.001), and 0.9 degrees +/- 0.4 degrees with translaminar screws (P < 0.001). All 3 devices also reduced flexion-extension neutral zone and torsion neutral zone and range of motion, compared with ALIF alone (P < 0.05). Lumbar plates did not decrease lateral bending range of motion or neutral zone (P > 0.05), whereas pedicle and translaminar screws did (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although not as rigid as pedicle or translaminar screws, anterior lumbar plating does add significant stability to an ALIF and may provide a valuable, single-approach alternative to supplemental posterior fixation.

Stiffness of prosthetic nucleus determines stiffness of reconstructed lumbar calf disc

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Currently, artificial spinal discs require transection or partial removal of the annulus fibrosis in order to excise the nucleus and implant a prosthetic nucleus or implant a total disc device, respectively. Preservation of the annulus for prosthetic disc replacement maintains the function of the annulus and may improve annulus load sharing with the prosthesis.

PURPOSE

To quantify the biomechanical characteristics of an annular sparing intervertebral prosthetic disc (IPD) in a lumbar calf spine model. The aim of the study was to determine whether altering the stiffness of the elastic component of this unique prosthesis would correspond to changes of the overall reconstructed disc.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A biomechanical study was conducted in vitro using cadaveric calf spines such that each specimen served as its own control. Investigations were performed at the Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory.

METHODS

Six L45 or L56 motion segments (from which the posterior elements had been removed) were studied in axial compression, sagittal and lateral bending and torsion. These load states were applied to the intact, denucleated and prosthetically reconstructed disc using four IPDs of differing stiffness.

RESULTS

Load-displacement testing demonstrated that stiffer IPDs resulted in a decreased range of motion and neutral zone, and greater stiffness of the reconstructed disc. Disc reconstruction with the stiffest IPD approximated the behavior of the intact disc.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall biomechanical characteristics of a reconstructed disc are related to the stiffness of a nucleus prosthesis. The similarities in the mechanical behavior of reconstructed and intact discs suggest that additional feasibility studies for the annulus-sparing IPD are warranted.