STUDY DESIGN: This is a cadaveric biomechanical study evaluating the biomechanical properties of a novel spinopelvic fixation technique with percutaneous lumbo-sacro-iliac (LSI) screws in an unstable total sacrectomy model. OBJECTIVE: To compare standard posterior dual rod spinopelvic fixation alone with dual rod fixation supplemented with LSI screw fixation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Primary or metastatic tumors of the sacrum requiring a total sacrectomy can result in spinopelvic instability if inadequate fixation is achieved. Many fixation techniques have been proposed to address this instability. However, to date, an optimal fixation technique has not been established. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten fresh-frozen cadaveric spinopelvic specimens were randomized according to bone mineral density (BMD) to either posterior rod fixation (control group) or posterior rod fixation with supplemental LSI screws (LSI group). After fixation, a total sacrectomy of each specimen was performed. Specimens where then potted and axially loaded in a caudal direction. Stiffness, yield load, energy absorbed at yield load, ultimate load, and energy absorbed at ultimate load were computed. A Student t test was used for statistical analysis with significance set at P<0.05. RESULTS: The average age and BMD were not significantly different between the control and LSI groups (age: P=0.255; BMD: P=0.810). After normalizing for BMD, there were no significant differences detected for any of the biomechanical parameters measured between the 2 fixation techniques: stiffness (P=0.857), yield load (P=0.219), energy at yield load (P=0.293), ultimate load (P=0.407), and energy at ultimate load (P=0.773). However, both fixation techniques were able to withstand physiological loads. CONCLUSIONS: Our study did not demonstrate any biomechanical advantage for supplemental LSI screw fixation in our axial loading model. However, given the theoretical advantage of this percutaneous technique, further studies are warranted that take into account forward bending and sagittal stability.
STUDY DESIGN: This is a cadaveric biomechanical study evaluating the biomechanical properties of a novel spinopelvic fixation technique with percutaneous lumbo-sacro-iliac (LSI) screws in an unstable total sacrectomy model. OBJECTIVE: To compare standard posterior dual rod spinopelvic fixation alone with dual rod fixation supplemented with LSI screw fixation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Primary or metastatic tumors of the sacrum requiring a total sacrectomy can result in spinopelvic instability if inadequate fixation is achieved. Many fixation techniques have been proposed to address this instability. However, to date, an optimal fixation technique has not been established. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten fresh-frozen cadaveric spinopelvic specimens were randomized according to bone mineral density (BMD) to either posterior rod fixation (control group) or posterior rod fixation with supplemental LSI screws (LSI group). After fixation, a total sacrectomy of each specimen was performed. Specimens where then potted and axially loaded in a caudal direction. Stiffness, yield load, energy absorbed at yield load, ultimate load, and energy absorbed at ultimate load were computed. A Student t test was used for statistical analysis with significance set at P<0.05. RESULTS: The average age and BMD were not significantly different between the control and LSI groups (age: P=0.255; BMD: P=0.810). After normalizing for BMD, there were no significant differences detected for any of the biomechanical parameters measured between the 2 fixation techniques: stiffness (P=0.857), yield load (P=0.219), energy at yield load (P=0.293), ultimate load (P=0.407), and energy at ultimate load (P=0.773). However, both fixation techniques were able to withstand physiological loads. CONCLUSIONS: Our study did not demonstrate any biomechanical advantage for supplemental LSI screw fixation in our axial loading model. However, given the theoretical advantage of this percutaneous technique, further studies are warranted that take into account forward bending and sagittal stability.
Authors: Z L Gokaslan; M M Romsdahl; S S Kroll; G L Walsh; T A Gillis; D M Wildrick; M E Leavens Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 1997-11 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: C M A van Zwienen; E W van den Bosch; C J Snijders; G J Kleinrensink; A B van Vugt Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 2.512