Alisson R Teles1, Daniel Yavin2, Christos P Zafeiris3, Kenneth C Thomas3, Peter Lewkonia3, Fred H Nicholls3, Ganesh Swamy3, W Bradley Jacobs2. 1. McGill Scoliosis & Spine Group, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Electronic address: alisson.r.teles@gmail.com. 2. Division of Neurosurgery Spine Program, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 3. Section of Orthopedic Surgery Spine Program, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many practicing spine surgeons believe that instrumentation can be removed during revision surgery in successful posterolateral or anterior spinal fusions, confirmed by computed tomography and intraoperative exploration. The stress-shielding effect of spinal instrumentation was well described in the late 1980s and 1990s but has not received recent attention. Despite the paucity of recent literature, concepts underlying the biology and biomechanics of the spinal fusion mass remain particularly salient given the increasing incidence of revision spinal fusion surgery. The aim of this study was to highlight a potential complication of instrumentation removal owing to stress shielding of instrumentation on the spinal column and fusion mass. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed, and a small case series was described. RESULTS: In 3 cases, despite apparent solid fusion demonstrated on preoperative computed tomography and confirmed by intraoperative exploration, new fractures developed after removal of instrumentation. In these cases, fracture occurred at the transition zone between the newly rigid instrumented area and previous fusion. This highlights the relative weakness of the fusion and may be explained by the stress-shielding effect of instrumentation within the fusion mass. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal instrumentation revision requires careful consideration, and routine implant removal should not be performed. The presence of a solid fusion on computed tomography and/or at intraoperative exploration may not justify implant removal in these cases. In cases of extension of a fusion, use of a bridging connection to the new implants should be considered. The cases presented demonstrate the consequences of the stress-shielding effect of implants on the spine and fusion mass.
BACKGROUND: Many practicing spine surgeons believe that instrumentation can be removed during revision surgery in successful posterolateral or anterior spinal fusions, confirmed by computed tomography and intraoperative exploration. The stress-shielding effect of spinal instrumentation was well described in the late 1980s and 1990s but has not received recent attention. Despite the paucity of recent literature, concepts underlying the biology and biomechanics of the spinal fusion mass remain particularly salient given the increasing incidence of revision spinal fusion surgery. The aim of this study was to highlight a potential complication of instrumentation removal owing to stress shielding of instrumentation on the spinal column and fusion mass. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed, and a small case series was described. RESULTS: In 3 cases, despite apparent solid fusion demonstrated on preoperative computed tomography and confirmed by intraoperative exploration, new fractures developed after removal of instrumentation. In these cases, fracture occurred at the transition zone between the newly rigid instrumented area and previous fusion. This highlights the relative weakness of the fusion and may be explained by the stress-shielding effect of instrumentation within the fusion mass. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal instrumentation revision requires careful consideration, and routine implant removal should not be performed. The presence of a solid fusion on computed tomography and/or at intraoperative exploration may not justify implant removal in these cases. In cases of extension of a fusion, use of a bridging connection to the new implants should be considered. The cases presented demonstrate the consequences of the stress-shielding effect of implants on the spine and fusion mass.
Authors: Jakub Litak; Michał Szymoniuk; Wojciech Czyżewski; Zofia Hoffman; Joanna Litak; Leon Sakwa; Piotr Kamieniak Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-05-20 Impact factor: 3.748