Search for: All records

Abstract PurposeTo assess the effect of various pelvic fixation techniques and number of rods on biomechanics of the proximal junction of long thoracolumbar posterior instrumented fusions. MethodsA validated spinopelvic finite-element (FE) model was instrumented with L5–S1 ALIF and one of the following 9 posterior instrumentation configurations: (A) one traditional iliac screw bilaterally (“2 Iliac/2 Rods”); (B) T10 to S1 (“Sacral Only”); (C) unilateral traditional iliac screw (“1 Iliac/2 Rods”); (D) one traditional iliac screw bilaterally with one midline accessory rod (“2 Iliac/3 rods”); (E) S2AI screws connected directly to the midline rods (“2 S2AI/2 Rods”); and two traditional iliac screws bilaterally with two lateral accessory rods connected to the main rods at varying locations (F1: T10–11, F2: T11–12, F3: T12–L1, F4: L1–2) (“4 Iliac/4 Rods”). Range of motions (ROM) at T10–S1 and T9–T10 were recorded and compared between models. The T9–T10 intradiscal pressures and stresses of the T9–10 disc’s annulus in addition to the von Mises stresses of the T9 and T10 vertebral bodies were recorded and compared. ResultsFor T10–S1 ROM, 4 iliac/4 rods had lowest ROM in flexion and extension, while 2 S2AI/2 rods showed lowest ROM in rotation. Constructs with 3 or 4 rods had lower stresses on the primary rods compared to 2-rod constructs. At the proximal adjacent disc (T9–10), 4 iliac/4 rods showed lowest ROM, lowest intradiscal pressures, and lowest annular stress in all directions (most pronounced in flexion–extension). Under flexion and extension, 4 iliac/4 rods also showed the lowest von Mises stresses on the T10 vertebral body but the highest stresses on the T9 vertebral body. ConclusionsDual iliac screws with 4 rods across the lumbosacral junction and extending to the thoracolumbar junction demonstrated the lowest T10–S1 ROM, the lowest adjacent segment disc (T9–T10) ROM, intradiscal pressures, and annular stresses, and the lowest UIV stresses, albeit with the highest UIV + 1 stresses. Additional studies are needed to confirm whether these biomechanical findings dictate clinical outcomes and effect rates of proximal junctional kyphosis and failure. 

Abstract PurposeTo evaluate proximal junctional biomechanics of a MLSS relative to traditional pedicle screw fixation at the proximal extent of T10-pelvis posterior instrumentation constructs (T10-p PSF). MethodsA previously validated three-dimensional osseoligamentous spinopelvic finite element (FE) model was used to compare proximal junctional range-of-motion (ROM), vertebral body stresses, and discal biomechanics between two groups: (1) T10-p with a T10-11 MLSS (“T10-11 MLSS”) and (2) T10-p with a traditional T10 pedicle screw (“Traditional T10-PS”). ResultsThe T10-11 MLSS had a 5% decrease in T9 cortical bone stress compared to Traditional T10-PS. Conversely, the T10 and T11 bone stresses increased by 46% and 98%, respectively, with T10-11 MLSS compared to Traditional T10-PS. Annular stresses and intradiscal pressures (IDP) were similar at T9-T10 between constructs. At the T10-11 disc, T10-11 MLSS decreased annular stresses by 29% and IDP by 48% compared to Traditional T10-PS. Adjacent ROM (T8-9 & T9-10) were similar between T10-11 MLSS and Traditional T10-PS. T10-11 MLSS had 39% greater ROM at T10-11 and 23% less ROM at T11-12 compared to Traditional T10-PS. ConclusionsIn this FE analysis, a T10-11 MLSS at the proximal extent of T10-pelvis posterior instrumentation resulted in increased T10 and T11 cortical bone stresses, decreased discal annular stress and IDP and increased ROM at T10-11, and no change in ROM at the adjacent level. Given the complex and multifactorial nature of proximal junctional kyphosis, these results require additional biomechanical and clinical evaluations to determine the clinical utility of MLSS on the proximal junctions of thoracolumbar posterior instrumented fusions. 

Abstract PurposeTo develop and validate a finite element (FE) model of a sacral pedicle subtraction osteotomy (S1-PSO) and to compare biomechanical properties of various multi-rod configurations to stabilize S1-PSOs. MethodsA previously validated FE spinopelvic model was used to develop a 30° PSO at the sacrum. Five multi-rod techniques spanning the S1-PSO were made using 4 iliac screws and a variety of primary rods (PR) and accessory rods (AR; lateral: Lat-AR or medial: Med-AR). All constructs, except one, utilized a horizontal rod (HR) connecting the iliac bolts to which PRs and Med-ARs were connected. Lat-ARs were connected to proximal iliac bolts. The simulation was performed in two steps with the acetabula fixed. For each model, PSO ROM and maximum stress on the PRs, ARs, and HRs were recorded and compared. The maximum stress on the L5–S1 disc and the PSO forces were captured and compared. ResultsHighest PSO ROMs were observed for 4-Rods (HR + 2 Med-AR). Constructs consisting of 5-Rods (HR + 2 Lat-ARs + 1 Med-AR) and 6-Rods (HR + 2 Lat-AR + 2 Med-AR) had the lowest PSO ROM. The least stress on the primary rods was seen with 6-Rods, followed by 5-Rods and 4-Rods (HR + 2 Lat-ARs). Lowest PSO forces and lowest L5–S1 disc stresses were observed for 4-Rod (Lat-AR), 5-Rod, and 6-Rod constructs, while 4-Rods (HR + Med-AR) had the highest. ConclusionIn this first FE analysis of an S1-PSO, the 4-Rod construct (HR + Med-AR) created the least rigid environment and highest PSO forces anteriorly. While 5- and 6-Rods created the stiffest constructs and lowest stresses on the primary rods, it also jeopardized load transfer to the anterior column, which may not be favorable for healing anteriorly. A balance between the construct’s rigidity and anterior load sharing is essential. 

Study DesignFinite element (FE) study. ObjectivePedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) is a surgical method to correct sagittal plane deformities. In this study, we aimed to investigate the biomechanical effects of lumbar disc degeneration on the instrumentation following PSO and assess the effects of using interbody spacers adjacent to the PSO level in a long instrumented spinal construct. MethodsA spinopelvic model (T10-pelvis) with PSO at the L3 level was used to generate 3 different simplified grades of degenerated lumbar discs (mild (Pfirrmann grade III), moderate (Pfirrmann grade IV), and severe (Pfirrmann grade V)). Instrumentation included eighteen pedicle screws and bilateral primary rods. To investigate the effect of interbody spacers, the model with normal disc height was modified to accommodate 2 interbody spacers adjacent to the PSO level through a lateral approach. For the models, the rods’ stress distribution, PSO site force values, and the spine range of motion (ROM) were recorded. ResultsThe mildly, moderately, and severely degenerated models indicated approximately 10%, 26%, and 40% decrease in flexion/extension motion, respectively. Supplementing the instrumented spinopelvic PSO model using interbody spacers reduced the ROM by 22%, 21%, 4%, and 11% in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, respectively. The FE results illustrated lower von Mises stress on the rods and higher forces at the PSO site at higher degeneration grades and while using the interbody spacers. ConclusionsLarger and less degenerated discs adjacent to the PSO site may warrant consideration for interbody cage instrumentation to decrease the risk of rod fracture and PSO site non-union. 

Abstract PurposeTo assess biomechanics of a lumbar PSO stabilized with different multi-rod constructs (4-, 5-, 6-rods) using satellite and accessory rods. MethodsA validated spinopelvic finite element model with a L3 PSO was used to evaluate the following constructs: 2 primary rods T10-pelvis (“Control”), two satellite rods (4-rod), two satellite rods + one accessory rod (5-rod), or two satellite rods + two accessory rods (6-rod). Data recorded included: ROM T10-S1 and L2-L4, von Mises stresses on primary, satellite, and accessory rods, factor of safety yield stress, and force across the PSO surfaces. Percent differences relative to Control were calculated. ResultsCompared to Control, 4-rods increased PSO flexion and extension. Lower PSO ROMs were observed for 5- and 6-rods compared to 4-rods. However, 4-rod (348.6 N) and 5-rod (343.2 N) showed higher PSO forces than 2-rods (336 N) and 6-rods had lower PSO forces (324.2 N). 5- and 6-rods led to the lowest rod von Mises stresses across the PSO. 6-rod had the maximum factor of safety on the primary rods. ConclusionsIn this finite element analysis, 4-rods reduced stresses on primary rods across a lumbar PSO. Although increased rigidity afforded by 5- and 6-rods decreased rod stresses, it resulted in less load transfer to the anterior vertebral column (particularly for 6-rod), which may not be favorable for the healing of the anterior column. A balance between the construct’s rigidity and anterior load sharing is essential. 

Abstract PurposeMulti-rod constructs are used commonly to stabilize pedicle subtraction osteotomies (PSO). This study aimed to evaluate biomechanical properties of different satellite rod configurations and effects of screw-type spanning a PSO. MethodsA validated 3D spinopelvic finite element model with a L3 PSO (30°) was used to evaluate 5 models: (1) Control (T10–pelvis + 2 rods); (2) lateral satellite rods connected via offsets to monoaxial screws (LatSat-Mono) or (3) polyaxial screws (LatSat-Poly); (4) in-line satellite rods connected to monoaxial screws (InSat-Mono) or (4) polyaxial screws (InSat-Poly). Global and PSO range of motions (ROM) were recorded. Rods’ von Mises stresses and PSO forces were recorded and the percent differences from Control were calculated. ResultsAll satellite rods (save InSat-Mono) increased PSO ROM and decreased primary rods’ von Mises stresses at the PSO. Lateral rods increased PSO forces (LatSat-Mono:347.1 N; LatSat-Poly:348.6 N; Control:336 N) and had relatively lower stresses, while in-line rods decreased PSO forces (InSat-Mono:280.1 N; InSat-Poly:330.7 N) and had relatively higher stresses. Relative to polyaxial screws, monoaxial screws further decreased PSO ROM, increased satellite rods’ stresses, and decreased PSO forces for in-line rods, but did not change PSO forces for lateral rods. ConclusionMulti-rod constructs using in-line and lateral satellite rods across a PSO reduced primary rods' stresses. Subtle differences in biomechanics suggest lateral satellite rods, irrespective of screw type, increase PSO forces and lower rod stresses compared to in-line satellite rods, which had a high degree of posterior instrumentation stress shielding and lower PSO forces. Clinical studies are warranted to determine if these findings influence clinical outcomes.