Posterior instrumentation reduces differences in spine stability as a result of different cage orientations: an in vitro study.

STUDY
DESIGN: A multisegmental cadaveric spine model was used to quantify the load-displacement behavior of intact spine specimens, specimens injured and stabilized using Bagby and Kuslich (BAK) cages as lumbar interbody fusion devices with or without posterior instrumentation across two levels.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the stabilities imparted by the cages placed using an oblique and conventional posterior approaches and to determine the effects of supplementary posterior instrumentation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The BAK cage as posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) has been used to restore disc height, reduce morbidity, provide immediate stability to the patients, and enhance fusion rates. The obliquely inserted BAK cage has the advantages of reducing exposure and precise implantation. The biomechanical efficacy of this procedure is sparse, especially in comparison to the PLIF with and without posterior instrumentation.
METHODS: Nine fresh human ligamentous spines (L2-S1) were affixed within a testing frame for determining their load-displacement behaviors. Load testing in clinically relevant modes was performed sequentially for the intact and the following procedures across the L4-S1 segment: posterior destabilization, stabilization using two parallel BAK cages (CBAK group) or one oblique BAK cage (OBAK group), further stabilization with posterior instrumentation, and finally cyclic loading in flexion-extension. Spatial positions of the LEDs attached to vertebral bodies were recorded using a three-dimensional motion measurement system.
RESULTS: When used alone to restore stability, the orientation of the cage affected the outcome. In flexion OBAK orientation and in extension CBAK orientation provided better stability (decrease in motion with respect to intact case), compared with the other orientation. In lateral bending, CBAK orientation was found to be better than OBAK. In axial mode, CBAK orientation was effective in both directions while OBAK was effective only in right axial rotation. With the supplementary posterior fixation, the differences in stability resulting from the orientations were not noticeable at all, both before and after cyclic tests.
CONCLUSIONS: Owing to the differences in the surgical approach and the amount of dissection, the stability for the cages when used alone as a function of cage orientation was different. These subtle differences were reduced by the use of posterior fixation device, underscoring the importance of using instrumentation when cages are used as PLIFs. However, the oblique insertion may be more favorable since it requires less exposure, enables precise implantation, and is less expensive, especially when used with supplementary instrumentation.