STUDY DESIGN: Three types of anterior thoracolumbar multisegmental fixation were biomechanically compared in construct stiffness and rod-screw strain. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of rod diameter and rod number on construct stiffness and rod-screw strain in anterior thoracolumbar multisegmental instrumentation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: No studies have been undertaken to investigate the biomechanical effects of rod diameter and rod number in thoracolumbar anterior instrumentation. METHODS: Ten fresh-frozen calf spines (T13-L5) were used. After intact analysis, a total discectomy and transection of the ALL and PLL were performed at L1-L2, L2-L3, and L3-L4 with intervertebral reconstruction using carbon fiber cages. Three types of anterior fixation were then performed at L1-L4: 1) 4.75-mm diameter single-rod, 2) 4.75-mm dual-rod, and 3) 6.35-mm single-rod systems. Single screws at each vertebra were used for single-rod and two screws for dual-rod fixation. These systems share the same basic design except rod diameter. Nondestructive biomechanical testing was performed and included compression, torsion, flexion-extension, and lateral bending. Construct stiffness and rod-screw strain of the three reconstructions were compared. RESULTS: The 6.35-mm single-rod fixation significantly improved construct stiffness compared with the 4.75-mm single rod fixation only under torsion (P < 0.05). The 4. 75-mm dual rod construct resulted in significantly higher stiffness than did both single-rod fixations (P < 0.05), except under compression. No statistical differences were observed in rod-screw strain between the two types of single rods, whereas dual-rod reconstruction exhibited less rod-screw strain (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For single-rod fixation, increased rod diameter neither markedly improved construct stiffness nor affected rod-screw strain, indicating the limitations of a single-rod system. In thoracolumbar anterior multisegmental instrumentation, the dual-rod fixation provides higher construct stiffness and less rod-screw strain compared with single-rod fixation.
STUDY DESIGN: Three types of anterior thoracolumbar multisegmental fixation were biomechanically compared in construct stiffness and rod-screw strain. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of rod diameter and rod number on construct stiffness and rod-screw strain in anterior thoracolumbar multisegmental instrumentation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: No studies have been undertaken to investigate the biomechanical effects of rod diameter and rod number in thoracolumbar anterior instrumentation. METHODS: Ten fresh-frozen calf spines (T13-L5) were used. After intact analysis, a total discectomy and transection of the ALL and PLL were performed at L1-L2, L2-L3, and L3-L4 with intervertebral reconstruction using carbon fiber cages. Three types of anterior fixation were then performed at L1-L4: 1) 4.75-mm diameter single-rod, 2) 4.75-mm dual-rod, and 3) 6.35-mm single-rod systems. Single screws at each vertebra were used for single-rod and two screws for dual-rod fixation. These systems share the same basic design except rod diameter. Nondestructive biomechanical testing was performed and included compression, torsion, flexion-extension, and lateral bending. Construct stiffness and rod-screw strain of the three reconstructions were compared. RESULTS: The 6.35-mm single-rod fixation significantly improved construct stiffness compared with the 4.75-mm single rod fixation only under torsion (P < 0.05). The 4. 75-mm dual rod construct resulted in significantly higher stiffness than did both single-rod fixations (P < 0.05), except under compression. No statistical differences were observed in rod-screw strain between the two types of single rods, whereas dual-rod reconstruction exhibited less rod-screw strain (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For single-rod fixation, increased rod diameter neither markedly improved construct stiffness nor affected rod-screw strain, indicating the limitations of a single-rod system. In thoracolumbar anterior multisegmental instrumentation, the dual-rod fixation provides higher construct stiffness and less rod-screw strain compared with single-rod fixation.