BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The lateral transpsoas approach to interbody fusion is gaining popularity because of its minimally invasive nature and resultant indirect neurologic decompression. The acute biomechanical stability of the lateral approach to interbody fusion is dependent on the type of supplemental internal fixation used. The two-hole lateral plate (LP) has been approved for clinical use for added stabilization after cage instrumentation. However, little biomechanical data exist comparing LP fixation with bilateral pedicle screw and rod (PSR) fixation. PURPOSE: To biomechanically compare the acute stabilizing effects of the two-hole LP and bilateral PSR fusion constructs in lumbar spines instrumented with a lateral cage at two contiguous levels. STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical laboratory study of human cadaveric lumbar spines. METHODS: Eighteen L1-S1 cadaveric lumbar spines were instrumented with lateral cages at L3-L4 and L4-L5 after intact kinematic analysis. Specimens (n=9 each) were allocated for supplemental instrumentation with either LP or PSR. Intact versus instrumented range of motion was evaluated for all specimens by applying pure moments (±7.5 Nm) in flexion/extension, lateral bending (LB) (left+right), and axial rotation (AR) (left+right). Instrumented spines were later subjected to 500 cycles of loading in all three planes, and interbody cage translations were quantified using a nonradiographic technique. RESULTS: Lateral plate fixation significantly reduced ROM (p<.05) at both lumbar levels (flexion/extension: 49.5%; LB: 67.3%; AR: 48.2%) relative to the intact condition. Pedicle screw and rod fixation afforded the greatest ROM reductions (p<.05) relative to the intact condition (flexion/extension: 85.6%; LB: 91.4%; AR: 61.1%). On average, the largest interbody cage translations were measured in both fixation groups in the anterior-posterior direction during cyclic AR. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these biomechanical findings, PSR fixation maximizes stability after lateral interbody cage placement. The nonradiographic technique served to quantify migration of implanted hardware and may be implemented as an effective laboratory tool for surgeons and engineers to better understand mechanical behavior of spinal implants.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The lateral transpsoas approach to interbody fusion is gaining popularity because of its minimally invasive nature and resultant indirect neurologic decompression. The acute biomechanical stability of the lateral approach to interbody fusion is dependent on the type of supplemental internal fixation used. The two-hole lateral plate (LP) has been approved for clinical use for added stabilization after cage instrumentation. However, little biomechanical data exist comparing LP fixation with bilateral pedicle screw and rod (PSR) fixation. PURPOSE: To biomechanically compare the acute stabilizing effects of the two-hole LP and bilateral PSR fusion constructs in lumbar spines instrumented with a lateral cage at two contiguous levels. STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical laboratory study of human cadaveric lumbar spines. METHODS: Eighteen L1-S1 cadaveric lumbar spines were instrumented with lateral cages at L3-L4 and L4-L5 after intact kinematic analysis. Specimens (n=9 each) were allocated for supplemental instrumentation with either LP or PSR. Intact versus instrumented range of motion was evaluated for all specimens by applying pure moments (±7.5 Nm) in flexion/extension, lateral bending (LB) (left+right), and axial rotation (AR) (left+right). Instrumented spines were later subjected to 500 cycles of loading in all three planes, and interbody cage translations were quantified using a nonradiographic technique. RESULTS: Lateral plate fixation significantly reduced ROM (p<.05) at both lumbar levels (flexion/extension: 49.5%; LB: 67.3%; AR: 48.2%) relative to the intact condition. Pedicle screw and rod fixation afforded the greatest ROM reductions (p<.05) relative to the intact condition (flexion/extension: 85.6%; LB: 91.4%; AR: 61.1%). On average, the largest interbody cage translations were measured in both fixation groups in the anterior-posterior direction during cyclic AR. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these biomechanical findings, PSR fixation maximizes stability after lateral interbody cage placement. The nonradiographic technique served to quantify migration of implanted hardware and may be implemented as an effective laboratory tool for surgeons and engineers to better understand mechanical behavior of spinal implants.
Authors: Brandon Santoni; Andres F Cabezas; Daniel J Cook; Matthew S Yeager; James B Billys; Benjamin Whiting; Boyle C Cheng Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2015-07-17
Authors: Hwee Weng Dennis Hey; Keng Lin Wong; Asrafi Rizki Gatam; Joel Louis Lim; Hee-Kit Wong Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Jason P Caffrey; Esther Cory; Van W Wong; Koichi Masuda; Albert C Chen; Jessee P Hunt; Timothy M Ganey; Robert L Sah Journal: J Biomech Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Antonio E Castellvi; Thomas W Nienke; German A Marulanda; Ryan D Murtagh; Brandon G Santoni Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Ripul Panchal; Ryan Denhaese; Clint Hill; K Brandon Strenge; Alexandre DE Moura; Peter Passias; Paul Arnold; Andrew Cappuccino; M David Dennis; Andy Kranenburg; Brieta Ventimiglia; Kim Martin; Chris Ferry; Sarah Martineck; Camille Moore; Kee Kim Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2018-08-03
Authors: Sabrina A Gonzalez-Blohm; James J Doulgeris; William E Lee; Thomas M Shea; Kamran Aghayev; Frank D Vrionis Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-02-15 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Brandon G Santoni; Gerald E Alexander; Aniruddh Nayak; Andres Cabezas; German A Marulanda; Ryan Murtagh; Antonio E Castellvi Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2013-12-01
Authors: William W Cross; Sigurd H Berven; Nick Slater; Jennifer N Lehrman; Anna G U S Newcomb; Brian P Kelly Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2018-10-15