Rod Attachment Induces Significant Strain in Lumbosacral Fixation

STUDY DESIGN

This was a laboratory investigation.

OBJECTIVE

Rod attachment can induce significant pedicle screw-and-rod pre- strain that may predispose the instrumentation to failure. This study investigated how in vitro L5-S1 rod strain and S1 screw strain during rod-screw attachment (pre-strain) compared with strains recorded during pure-moment bending ( test- strain).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The lumbosacral junction is highly vulnerable to construct failure due to rod fatigue fracture, sacral screw pull-out, and screw fatigue fracture.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve cadaveric specimens were instrumented with L2-ilium pedicle screws and rod. Strain gauges on contoured rods and sacral screws recorded strains during sequential rod-to-screw tightening (pre-strains). The same instrumented constructs were immediately tested in a 6-degree-of-freedom apparatus under continuous loading to 7.5 Nm in multidirectional bending while recording instrumentation test-strains. Rod and screw pre-strains and test-strains were compared using 1-way repeated-measures analysis of variance followed by Holm-Šidák paired analysis (significant at P <0.05).

RESULTS

The mean first (171±192 µE) and second (322±269 µE) rod attachment pre-strains were comparable to mean test-strains during flexion (265±109 µE) and extension (315±125 µE, P ≥0.13). The mean rod attachment pre-strain was significantly greater than mean test-strains during bidirectional lateral bending (40±32 µE ipsilateral and 39±32 µE contralateral, P <0.001) and axial rotation (72±60 µE ipsilateral and 60±57 µE contralateral, P <0.001). The mean first and second sacral screw pre-strains during rod attachment (1.03±0.66 and 1.39±1.00 Nm, respectively) did not differ significantly ( P =0.41); however, the mean sacral screw pre-strain during final (second) rod attachment was significantly greater than screw test-strains during all directions of movement (≤0.81 Nm, P ≤0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Instrumentation pre-strains imposed during in vitro rod-screw attachment of seemingly well-contoured rods in L2-ilium fixation are comparable to, and at times greater than, strains experienced during in vitro bending. Spine surgeons should be aware of the biomechanical consequences of rod contouring and attachment on construct vulnerability.

Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy Construct Optimization: A Cadaveric Study of Various Multirod and Interbody Configurations

STUDY DESIGN

Fourteen cadaveric specimens were separated into two groups: (1) L3 pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or (2) lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). A 2-rod configuration (2R) was compared with two supplemental rod configurations: 4-rod (4R) with accessory rods (ARs) using connectors or 4R with satellite rods (SRs) without connectors.

OBJECTIVE

Compare PSO constructs with different rod configurations and adjacent-level interbody support.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Supplemental rods and anterior column support enhance biomechanical performance.

METHODS

Pure moments were applied in (1) intact, (2) pedicle screws and rods, (3) PSO + 2R, (4) 4R AR, and (5) 4R SR conditions. Primary and supplemental rods had strain gauges across the index level. Sacral screw bending moments and range of motion (ROM) were recorded.

RESULTS

For TLIF, AR decreased ROM during flexion (P = 0.02) and extension (P < 0.001) versus 2R. For LLIF, AR and SR decreased motion versus 2R during left (AR: P  = 0.03; SR: P  = 0.04) and right (AR: P  = 0.002; SR: P  = 0.01) axial rotation. For LLIF, sacral screw strain increased with SR compared with AR in compression and right lateral bending (P ≤ 0.03). During lateral bending, rod strain increased with PSO+TLIF+SR versus PSO+LLIF+2R and PSO+LLIF+AR (P ≤ 0.02). For LLIF, SR configuration increased rod strain versus AR during flexion, extension, and lateral bending (P≤ 0.01); for TLIF, rod strain increased with SR versus AR during extension (P = 0.03). For LLIF, AR configuration increased posterior supplemental rod strain versus SR during flexion (P = 0.02) and lateral bending (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Both supplemental rod configurations reduced motion in both groups. Constructs with the SR configuration increased the primary rod strain and the sacral screw bending moment compared with AR constructs, which can share strain. Deep-seated SRs, which have become increasingly popular, may be more vulnerable to failure than ARs. LLIF provided more stability in sagittal plane. Protective effect of supplemental rods on rod strain was more effective with TLIF.Level of Evidence: NA.

Biomechanics of a laterally placed sacroiliac joint fusion device supplemental to S2 alar-iliac fixation in a long-segment adult spinal deformity construct: a cadaveric study of stability and strain distribution

OBJECTIVE

S2 alar-iliac (S2AI) screw fixation effectively enhances stability in long-segment constructs. Although S2AI fixation provides a single transarticular sacroiliac joint fixation (SIJF) point, additional fixation points may provide greater stability and attenuate screw and rod strain. The objectives of this study were to evaluate changes in stability and pedicle screw and rod strain with extended distal S2AI fixation and with supplemental bilateral integration of two sacroiliac joint fusion devices implanted using a traditional minimally invasive surgical approach.

METHODS

Eight L1-pelvis human cadaveric specimens underwent pure moment (7.5 Nm) and compression (400 N) tests under 4 conditions: 1) intact (pure moment loading only); 2) L2-S1 pedicle screw and rod with L5-S1 interbody fusion; 3) added S2AI screws; and 4) added bilateral laterally placed SIJF. Range of motion (ROM), rod strain, and screw-bending moment (S1 and S2AI) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Compared with S1 fixation, S2AI fixation significantly reduced L5-S1 ROM in right lateral bending by 50% (0.11°, p = 0.049) and in compression by 39% (0.22°, p = 0.003). Compared with fixation ending at S1, extending fixation with S2AI significantly decreased sacroiliac joint ROM by 52% (0.28°, p = 0.02) in flexion, by 65% (0.48°, p = 0.04) in extension, by 59% (0.76°, p = 0.02) in combined flexion-extension, and by 36% (0.09°, p = 0.02) in left axial rotation. The addition of S2AI screws reduced S1 screw-bending moment during flexion (0.106 Nm [43%], p = 0.046). With S2AI fixation, posterior L5-S1 primary rod strain increased by 124% (159 μE, p = 0.002) in flexion, by 149% (285 μE, p = 0.02) in left axial rotation, and by 99% (254 μE, p = 0.04) in right axial rotation. Compared with S2AI fixation, the addition of SIJF reduced L5-S1 strain during right axial rotation by 6% (28 μE, p = 0.04) and increased L5-S1 strain in extension by 6% (28 μE, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-segment constructs ending with S2AI screws created a more stable construct than those ending with S1 screws, reducing lumbosacral and sacroiliac joint motion and S1 screw-bending moment in flexion. These benefits, however, were paired with increased rod strain at the lumbosacral junction. The addition of SIJF to constructs ending at S2AI did not significantly change SI joint ROM or S1 screw bending and reduced S2AI screw bending in compression. SIJF further decreased L5-S1 rod strain in axial rotation and increased it in extension.

Biomechanical effects of a novel posteriorly placed sacroiliac joint fusion device integrated with traditional lumbopelvic long-construct instrumentation

OBJECTIVE

S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) screw fixation effectively ensures stability and enhances fusion in long-segment constructs. Nevertheless, pelvic fixation is associated with a high rate of mechanical failure. Because of the transarticular nature of the S2AI screw, adding a second point of fixation may provide additional stability and attenuate strains. The objective of the study was to evaluate changes in stability and strain with the integration of a sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion device, implanted through a novel posterior SI approach, supplemental to posterior long-segment fusion.

METHODS

L1-pelvis human cadaveric specimens underwent pure moment (7.5 Nm) and compression (400 N) tests in the following conditions: 1) intact, 2) L2-S1 pedicle screw and rod fixation with L5-S1 interbody fusion, 3) added S2AI screws, and 4) added bilateral SI joint fixation (SIJF). The range of motion (ROM), rod strain, and screw bending moments (S1 and S2AI) were analyzed.

RESULTS

S2AI fixation decreased L2-S1 ROM in flexion-extension (p ≤ 0.04), L5-S1 ROM in flexion-extension and compression (p ≤ 0.004), and SI joint ROM during flexion-extension and lateral bending (p ≤ 0.03) compared with S1 fixation. SI joint ROM was significantly less with SIJF in place than with the intact joint, S1, and S2AI fixation in flexion-extension and lateral bending (p ≤ 0.01). The S1 screw bending moment decreased following S2AI fixation by as much as 78% in extension, but with statistical significance only in right axial rotation (p = 0.03). Extending fixation to S2AI significantly increased the rod strain at L5-S1 during flexion, axial rotation, and compression (p ≤ 0.048). SIJF was associated with a slight increase in rod strain versus S2AI fixation alone at L5-S1 during left lateral bending (p = 0.048). Compared with the S1 condition, fixation to S2AI increased the mean rod strain at L5-S1 during compression (p = 0.048). The rod strain at L5-S1 was not statistically different with SIJF compared with S2AI fixation (p ≥ 0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Constructs ending with an S2AI screw versus an S1 screw tended to be more stable, with reduced SI joint motion. S2AI fixation decreased the S1 screw bending moments compared with fixation ending at S1. These benefits were paired with increased rod strain at L5-S1. Supplementation of S2AI fixation with SIJF implants provided further reductions (approximately 30%) in the sagittal plane and lateral bending SI joint motion compared with fixation ending at the S2AI position. This stability was not paired with significant changes in rod or screw strains.

Impact of dual-headed pedicle screws on the biomechanics of lumbosacral junction multirod constructs

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate a novel connector design and compare it with traditional side connectors, such as a fixed-angle connector (FAC) and a variable-angle connector (VAC), with respect to lumbosacral stability and instrumentation strain.

METHODS

Standard nondestructive flexibility tests (7.5 Nm) and compression tests (400 N) were performed using 7 human cadaveric specimens (L1-ilium) to compare range of motion (ROM) stability, posterior rod strain (RS), and sacral screw bending moment (SM). Directions of motion included flexion, extension, left and right lateral bending, left and right axial rotation, and compression. Conditions included 1) the standard 2-rod construct (2R); 2) the dual-tulip head (DTH) with 4-rod construct (4R); 3) FACs with 4R; and 4) VACs with 4R. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA.

RESULTS

Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in ROM across the lumbosacral junction among conditions (p > 0.07). Compared with 2R, DTH and FAC significantly reduced RS in extension, left axial rotation, and compression (p ≤ 0.03). VAC significantly decreased RS compared with 2R in flexion, extension, left axial rotation, right axial rotation, and compression (p ≤ 0.03), and significantly decreased RS compared with DTH in extension (p = 0.02). DTH was associated with increased SM in left and right axial rotation compared with 2R (p ≤ 0.003) and in left and right lateral bending and left and right axial rotation compared with FAC and VAC (p ≤ 0.02). FAC and VAC were associated with decreased SM compared with 2R in right and left lateral bending (p ≤ 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

RS across the lumbosacral junction can be high. Supplemental rod fixation with DTH is an effective strategy for reducing RS across the lumbosacral junction. However, the greatest reduction in RS and SM was achieved with a VAC that allowed for straight (uncontoured) accessory rod placement.

Supplemental rods are needed to maximally reduce rod strain across the lumbosacral junction with TLIF but not ALIF in long constructs

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Rod fracture at the lumbosacral (LS) junction remains challenging in long segment fusions and likely stems from increased LS strain. Reduction of LS instrumentation strain may help reduce fracture rates.

PURPOSE

The goal of this investigation was to assess the effect of supplemental posterior 4-rod (4R) construction on LS stability and rod strain compared with standard 2-rod (2R) construction in a long segment fusion model.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Cadaveric biomechanical study.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Range of motion (ROM), rod strain, and sacral screw (SS) bending moments during flexion, extension, compression, lateral bending, and axial rotation.

METHODS

Standard nondestructive flexibility tests (7.5 Nm) were performed on 14 cadaveric specimens (L1-ilium) to assess ROM stability, rod strain, and SS bending moment of a supplemental 4R construction versus standard 2R construction. Specimens were equally divided into L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or L5-S1 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) groups. Three conditions were tested in each group: (1) no lumbar interbody fusion (No LIF)+2R, (2) ALIF or TLIF+2R, and (3) ALIF or TLIF+4R. Data were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) or ANOVA.

RESULTS

No differences were observed between groups 1 and 2 for age, sex, bone mineral density, or baseline ROM (p>.09). Overall, TLIF+2R demonstrated greater ROM than ALIF+4R in extension (p=003), with greater rod strain in flexion, extension, and compression (p<.001), and greater SS in compression and AR (p<.04). Compared with TLIF+2R, TLIF+4R resulted in reduced rod strain in flexion, extension, compression, and LB (p<.04), as well as SS in AR (p<.001). The TLIF+4R yielded biomechanics comparable to ALIF+2R in ROM and rod strain but SS inflexion, extension, compression, and AR remained elevated (p<001). The ALIF+4R did not significantly improve ROM, rod strain, or SS (p>.11).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ALIF and adding accessory rods with TLIF significantly reduced LS rod strain in a long segment cadaveric model with iliac fixation.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Reducing strain could decrease the risk of failure associated with long segment fixation.

Iliac screws may not be necessary in long-segment constructs with L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion: cadaveric study of stability and instrumentation strain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbosacral pseudoarthrosis and instrumentation failure is common with long-segment constructs. Optimizing lumbosacral construct biomechanics may help to reduce failure rates. The influence of iliac screws and interbody type on range of motion (ROM), rod strain (RS), sacral screw strain (SS) is not well-established.

PURPOSE

Investigate the effects of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and iliac screws on long-segment lumbosacral construct biomechanics.

STUDY DESIGN

Biomechanical study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Fourteen human cadaveric spine specimens.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Lumbosacral ROM, RS, and SS.

METHODS

Specimens were potted at L1 and the ilium. Specimens were equally divided into either an L5-S1 ALIF or TLIF group and underwent testing in the following conditions: (1) intact (2) L2-S1 pedicle screw rod fixation (PSR-S) (3) L2-ilium (PSR-I) (4) PSR-S+ALIF (ALIF-S) or TLIF (TLIF-S) (5) PSR-I + ALIF (ALIF-I) or TLIF (TLIF-I). Pure moment bending (7.5 Nm) in flexion, extension, lateral bending, axial rotation, and compressive loads (400N) were applied and ROM, SS, and RS were measured. Comparisons were performed using a one-way ANOVA (p<.05).

RESULTS

ALIF-S and TLIF-S provided similar decreases in ROM as TLIF-I (p>.05). Compared to PSR-S, PSR-I significantly decreased SS during bending in all directions (p<.02) but increased RS in flexion and extension (p≤.02). Anterior lumbar interbody fusion-S provided similar decreases in SS as TLIF-I in all directions (p>.40) but had significantly less RS than TLIF-I in flexion, extension, compression (p<.01). TLIF-S had more SS than TLIF-I in flexion, extension, axial rotation (p<.02), while TLIF-S had less RS only in flexion (p=.03). Compared to PSR-I, ALIF-I decreased the RS (p<.02) but TLIF-I did not (p>.67).

CONCLUSIONS

Iliac screws were protective of SS but increased RS at the lumbosacral junction. Constructs with ALIF and no iliac screws result in comparable SS as constructs with TLIF and iliac screws with significantly reduced RS. If iliac screws are utilized, ALIF but not TLIF reduces the iliac screw-induced RS.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

There is a relatively high incidence of lumbosacral instrumentation failure in adult spinal deformity. Optimizing lumbosacral construct biomechanics may help to reduce failure rates. Iliac screws induce lumbosacral rod strain and may be responsible for instrumentation failure. Constructs with lumbosacral ALIF reduce iliac-screw induced rod strain and may obviate the need for fixation to the ilium.

Limiting interpedicular screw displacement increases shear forces in screws: A finite element study

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Screw loosening has been reported for non-fusion devices. Forces on pedicle screws could be related to kinematic parameters as the interpedicular displacement (ID), which consists of the displacement between superior and inferior screw heads from full extension to full flexion.

PURPOSE

To investigate the relationship between ID and screw loosening for different designs of posterior implants using a finite element model.

METHODS

An L3-sacrum previously validated spine FE model was used. Three-rod designs were considered in L4-L5 segment: a rigid screw-rod implant, a flexible one and a specific design with a sliding rod providing limited restrain in ID. In order to simulate intermediate configurations, the friction coefficient between the sliding rods and connectors were varied. The sacrum was rigidly fixed. Rotations (flexion-extension, lateral bending and axial rotation) were applied to L3, for each modeled configuration: intact, injured, injured with different implants. Model consistency was checked with existing experimental in vitro data on intact and instrumented segments. Screw loads were computed as well as ID.

RESULTS

In flexion-extension, the ID was less than 2mm for rigid (R) and flexible (F) constructs and 5.5mm for intact spine and the sliding implant (S3). Screw's shear forces were 272N, 153N, 43N respectively for R, F and S3 constructs.

CONCLUSIONS

Implants that allow ID presented lower screws loads. A compromise between the ability of the implant to withstand compressive forces, which requires longitudinal stiffness, and its ability to allow ID could be important for future implant designs in order to prevent screw loosening.

Biomechanical assessment of the stabilization capacity of monolithic spinal rods with different flexural stiffness and anchoring arrangement

BACKGROUND

Spinal disorders can be treated by several means including fusion surgery. Rigid posterior instrumentations are used to obtain the stability needed for fusion. However, the abrupt stiffness variation between the stabilized and intact segments leads to proximal junctional kyphosis. The concept of spinal rods with variable flexural stiffness is proposed to create a more gradual transition at the end of the instrumentation.

METHOD

Biomechanical tests were conducted on porcine spine segments (L1-L6) to assess the stabilization capacity of spinal rods with different flexural stiffness. Dual-rod fusion constructs containing three kinds of rods (Ti, Ti-Ni superelastic, and Ti-Ni half stiff-half superelastic) were implanted using two anchor arrangements: pedicle screws at all levels or pedicle screws at all levels except for upper instrumented vertebra in which case pedicle screws were replaced with transverse process hooks. Specimens were loaded in forward flexion, extension, and lateral bending before and after implantation of the fusion constructs. The effects of different rods on specimen stiffness, vertebra mobility, intradiscal pressures, and anchor forces were evaluated.

FINDING

The differences in rod properties had a moderate impact on the biomechanics of the instrumented spine when only pedicle screws were used. However, this effect was amplified when transverse process hooks were used as proximal anchors.

INTERPRETATION

Combining transverse hooks and softer (Ti-Ni superelastic and Ti-Ni half stiff-half superelastic) rods provided more motion at the upper instrumented level and applied less force on the anchors, potentially improving the load sharing capacity of the instrumentation.

Flexibility and fatigue evaluation of oblique as compared with anterior lumbar interbody cages with integrated endplate fixation

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to quantify the in vitro range of motion (ROM) of oblique as compared with anterior lumbar interbody devices, pullout resistance, and subsidence in fatigue.

METHODS

Anterior and oblique cages with integrated plate fixation (IPF) were tested using lumbar motion segments. Flexibility tests were conducted on the intact segments, cage, cage + IPF, and cage + IPF + pedicle screws (6 anterior, 7 oblique). Pullout tests were then performed on the cage + IPF. Fatigue testing was conducted on the cage + IPF specimens for 30,000 cycles.

RESULTS

No ROM differences were observed in any test group between anterior and oblique cage constructs. The greatest reduction in ROM was with supplemental pedicle screw fixation. Peak pullout forces were 637 ± 192 N and 651 ± 127 N for the anterior and oblique implants, respectively. The median cage subsidence was 0.8 mm and 1.4 mm for the anterior and oblique cages, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Anterior and oblique cages similarly reduced ROM in flexibility testing, and the integrated fixation prevented device displacement. Subsidence was minimal during fatigue testing, most of which occurred in the first 2500 cycles.

In-vitro assessment of the stabilization capacity of monolithic spinal rods with variable flexural stiffness: Methodology and examples

The concept of a monolithic Ti-Ni spinal rod with variable flexural stiffness is proposed to reduce the risks associated with spinal fusion. The variable stiffness is conferred to the rod using the Joule-heating local annealing technique. To assess the stabilization capacity of such a spinal rod, in vitro experiments on porcine spine models are carried out. This paper describes the methodology followed to evaluate the effect of Ti-Ni rods compared to conventional titanium rods. Validation of the methodology and examples of results obtained are also presented.

Biomechanical effect of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and axial interbody threaded rod on range of motion and S1 screw loading in a destabilized L5-S1 spondylolisthesis model

STUDY DESIGN

A cadaveric lumbosacral spondylolytic spondylolisthesis model was used to evaluate the biomechanical function of 2 different interbody spacers.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze and compare the reduction in pedicle screw strain and spine range of motion (ROM) between transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and an axial interbody threaded rod (AxialITR) in a destabilized L5-S1 spondylolisthesis model.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Symptomatic spondylolytic spondylolisthesis is often treated with posterior instrumented fusion augmented by a variety of different interbody devices. Interbody spacers rely primarily on posterior instrumentation to stabilize the spine during fusion, but there may be advantages to the more rigid support offered by an anterior threaded rod.

METHODS

Pure-moment flexibility testing was performed on L3-S1 cadaveric specimens in 4 conditions: (1) Intact, (2) L5-S1 pedicle screws (PS) + L5-S1 disc destabilization (DDS), (3) TLIF at L5-S1 + PS + DDS, and (4) AxialITR at L5-S1 + PS + DDS. Specimens were destabilized by performing a complete denucleation at L5-S1 and sectioning two-thirds of the annulus' width from anterior to posterior. The S1 PSs were instrumented with strain gauges to measure screw-bending moments and ROM was quantified with a noncontact camera system.

RESULTS

S1 screw strains were highest with PS but were significantly reduced by 73% in flexion and 31% in extension with TLIF (P ≤ 0.004). AxialITR significantly reduced strain by 78% in flexion and 81% in extension (P ≤ 0.001). ROM was smallest with AxialITR in each test direction at 1.7 ± 1.8° in flexion-extension, 1.6 ± 0.9° in lateral bending and 1.3 ± 0.8° in torsion.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that ROM and S1 screw-bending moments were reduced with the use of AxialITR and TLIF. Although the TLIF and AxialITR both reduced strains and motion, the AxialITR provided a significant reduction in extension strain when compared with TLIF.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.