STUDY DESIGN: Pedicle screw fixation alone for sequential spinal instabilities was biomechanically compared with pedicle screw fixation using interbody cages. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate biomechanical effects of interbody cages on construct stiffness, pedicle-screw strain, and the adjacent level in posterior lumbar reconstruction using pedicle screw fixation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: It remains undetermined what types of spinal instability require interbody support in posterior lumbar reconstruction. METHODS: For this study, 10 calf spines (L3-L6) were used. Sequential destabilization was performed at L4-L5 followed by posterior reconstruction using pedicle screw fixation (PS) and interbody cages as follows: intact + PS (I-PS), medial facetectomy + PS (MF-PS), total facetectomy + PS (TF-PS), partial discectomy + PS (D-PS), and D-PS + interbody cages (PLIF). Biomechanical testing was performed under flexion and extension loading modes. Construct stiffness (L4-L5), rod-screw bending strain, and range of motion (ROM) at the upper adjacent level (L3-L4) were analyzed. RESULTS: In terms of construct stiffness (L4-L5), all the reconstructions except D-PS demonstrated higher construct stiffness than the intact spine (P < 0.05). The PLIF showed the highest stiffness among all the reconstructions (P < 0.05). In terms of ROM (L3-L4), all the reconstructions increased the ROM, as compared with the intact state (P < 0.05). Importantly, PLIF showed significantly greater ROM than all the other reconstructions except I-PS (P < 0.05). In terms of rod-screw strain, the D-PS resulted in higher strain than the other groups (P < 0.05). The PLIF presented less strain than the other reconstructions (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For spinal instability with preserved anterior load sharing, pedicle screw fixation alone is biomechanically adequate, and interbody cages should not be used because they further increase segmental motion at the adjacent segment. However, PS alone provides insufficient stability and high implant strain in case of damaged anterior column. In such cases, additional interbody cages significantly increase construct stiffness and decrease hardware strain. However, they increase ROM at the adjacent segment as well.
STUDY DESIGN: Pedicle screw fixation alone for sequential spinal instabilities was biomechanically compared with pedicle screw fixation using interbody cages. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate biomechanical effects of interbody cages on construct stiffness, pedicle-screw strain, and the adjacent level in posterior lumbar reconstruction using pedicle screw fixation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: It remains undetermined what types of spinal instability require interbody support in posterior lumbar reconstruction. METHODS: For this study, 10 calf spines (L3-L6) were used. Sequential destabilization was performed at L4-L5 followed by posterior reconstruction using pedicle screw fixation (PS) and interbody cages as follows: intact + PS (I-PS), medial facetectomy + PS (MF-PS), total facetectomy + PS (TF-PS), partial discectomy + PS (D-PS), and D-PS + interbody cages (PLIF). Biomechanical testing was performed under flexion and extension loading modes. Construct stiffness (L4-L5), rod-screw bending strain, and range of motion (ROM) at the upper adjacent level (L3-L4) were analyzed. RESULTS: In terms of construct stiffness (L4-L5), all the reconstructions except D-PS demonstrated higher construct stiffness than the intact spine (P < 0.05). The PLIF showed the highest stiffness among all the reconstructions (P < 0.05). In terms of ROM (L3-L4), all the reconstructions increased the ROM, as compared with the intact state (P < 0.05). Importantly, PLIF showed significantly greater ROM than all the other reconstructions except I-PS (P < 0.05). In terms of rod-screw strain, the D-PS resulted in higher strain than the other groups (P < 0.05). The PLIF presented less strain than the other reconstructions (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For spinal instability with preserved anterior load sharing, pedicle screw fixation alone is biomechanically adequate, and interbody cages should not be used because they further increase segmental motion at the adjacent segment. However, PS alone provides insufficient stability and high implant strain in case of damaged anterior column. In such cases, additional interbody cages significantly increase construct stiffness and decrease hardware strain. However, they increase ROM at the adjacent segment as well.
Authors: A Cianfoni; R L Delfanti; M Isalberti; P Scarone; E Koetsier; G Bonaldi; J A Hirsch; M Pileggi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 3.825