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 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. 

Background: Slipped capital femoral epiphysis is a prevalent pediatric hip disorder. Recent studies suggest the spine’s sagittal profile may influence the proximal femoral growth plate’s slippage, an aspect not extensively explored. This study utilizes finite element analysis to investigate how various spinopelvic alignments affect shear stress and growth plate slip. Methods: A finite element model was developed from CT scans of a healthy adult male lumbar spine, pelvis, and femurs. The model was subjected to various sagittal alignments through reorientation. Simulations of two-leg stance, one-leg stance, walking heel strike, ascending stairs heel strike, and descending stairs heel strike were conducted. Parameters measured included hip joint contact area, stress, and maximum growth plate Tresca (shear) stress. Findings: Posterior pelvic tilt cases indicated larger shear stresses compared to the anterior pelvic tilt variants except in two leg stance. Two leg stance resulted in decreases in the posterior tilted pelvi variants hip contact and growth plate Tresca stress compared to anterior tilted pelvi, however a combination of posterior pelvic tilt and high pelvic incidence indicated larger shear stresses on the growth plate. One leg stance and heal strike resulted in higher shear stress on the growth plate in posterior pelvic tilt variants compared to anterior pelvic tilt, with a combination of posterior pelvic tilt and high pelvic incidence resulting in the largest shear. Interpretation: Our findings suggest that posterior pelvic tilt and high pelvic incidence may lead to increased shear stress at the growth plate. Activities performed in patients with these alignments may predispose to biomechanical loading that shears the growth plate, potentially leading to slip. 

Background Context: Pelvic ring fractures are becoming more common in the aging population and can prove to be fatal, having mortality rates between 10% and 16%. Stabilization of these fractures is challenging and often require immediate internal fixation. Therefore, it is necessary to have a biomechanical understanding of the different fixation techniques for pelvic ring fractures. Methods: A previously validated three-dimensional finite element model of the lumbar spine, pelvis, and femur was used for this study. A unilateral pelvic ring fracture was simulated by resecting the left side of the sacrum and pelvis. Five different fixation techniques were used to stabilize the fracture. A compressive follower load and pure moment was applied to compare different biomechanical parameters including range of motion (contralateral sacroiliac joint, L1-S1 segment, L5-S1 segment), and stresses (L5-S1 nucleus stresses, instrument stresses) between different fixation techniques. Results: Trans-iliac–trans-sacral screw fixation at S1 and S2 showed the highest stabilization for horizontal and vertical displacement at the sacral fracture site and reduction of contralateral sacroiliac joint for bending and flexion range of motion by 165% and 121%, respectively. DTSF (Double transiliac rod and screw fixation) model showed highest stabilization in horizontal displacement at the pubic rami fracture site, while the L5_PF_W_CC (L5-Ilium posterior screw fixation with cross connectors) and L5_PF_WO_CC (L5-Ilium posterior screw fixation without cross connectors) showed higher rod stresses, reduced L1-S1 (approximately 28%), and L5-S1 (approximately 90%) range of motion. Conclusions: Longer sacral screw fixations were superior in stabilizing sacral and contralateral sacroiliac joint range of motion. Lumbopelvic fixations displayed a higher degree of stabilization in the horizontal displacement compared to vertical displacement of pubic rami fracture, while also indicating the highest rod stresses. When determining the surgical approach for pelvic ring fractures, patient-specific factors should be accounted for to weigh the advantages and disadvantages for each technique.