Kyle A McGrath1, Eric S Schmidt1,2, Jeremy G Loss3, Callan M Gillespie3, Robb W Colbrunn3, Robert S Butler4, Michael P Steinmetz1,2. 1. 1Center for Spine Health, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland. 2. 2Department of Neurosurgery, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland. 3. 3Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; and. 4. 4Department of Quantitative Health Services, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Excessive stress and motion at the L5-S1 level can lead to degenerative changes, especially in patients with posterior instrumentation suprajacent to L5. Attention has turned to utilization of L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) to stabilize the lumbosacral junction. However, questions remain regarding the effectiveness of stand-alone ALIF in the setting of prior posterior instrumented fusions terminating at L5. The purpose of this study was to assess the biomechanical stability of an L5-S1 ALIF with increasing lengths of posterior thoracolumbar constructs. METHODS: Seven human cadaveric spines (T9-sacrum) were instrumented with pedicle screws from T10 to L5 and mounted to a 6 degrees-of-freedom robot. Posterior fusion construct lengths (T10-L5, T12-L5, L2-5, and L4-5) were instrumented to each specimen, and torque-fusion level relationships were determined for each construct in flexion-extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending. A stand-alone L5-S1 ALIF was then instrumented, and L5-S1 motion was measured as increasing pure moments (2 to 12 Nm) were applied. Motion reduction was calculated by comparing L5-S1 motion across the ALIF and non-ALIF states. RESULTS: The average motion at L5-S1 in axial rotation, flexion-extension, and lateral bending was assessed for each fusion construct with and without ALIF. After adding ALIF to a posterior fusion, L5-S1 motion was significantly reduced relative to the non-ALIF state in all but one fused surgical condition (p < 0.05). Longer fusions with ALIF produced larger L5-S1 motions, and in some cases resulted in motions higher than native state motion. CONCLUSIONS: Posterior fusion constructs up to L4-5 could be appropriately stabilized by a stand-alone L5-S1 ALIF when using a nominal threshold of 80% reduction in native motion as a potential positive indicator of fusion. The results of this study allow conclusions to be drawn from a biomechanical standpoint; however, the clinical implications of these data are not well defined. These findings, when taken in appropriate clinical context, can be used to better guide clinicians seeking to treat L5-S1 pathology in patients with prior posterior thoracolumbar constructs.
OBJECTIVE: Excessive stress and motion at the L5-S1 level can lead to degenerative changes, especially in patients with posterior instrumentation suprajacent to L5. Attention has turned to utilization of L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) to stabilize the lumbosacral junction. However, questions remain regarding the effectiveness of stand-alone ALIF in the setting of prior posterior instrumented fusions terminating at L5. The purpose of this study was to assess the biomechanical stability of an L5-S1 ALIF with increasing lengths of posterior thoracolumbar constructs. METHODS: Seven human cadaveric spines (T9-sacrum) were instrumented with pedicle screws from T10 to L5 and mounted to a 6 degrees-of-freedom robot. Posterior fusion construct lengths (T10-L5, T12-L5, L2-5, and L4-5) were instrumented to each specimen, and torque-fusion level relationships were determined for each construct in flexion-extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending. A stand-alone L5-S1 ALIF was then instrumented, and L5-S1 motion was measured as increasing pure moments (2 to 12 Nm) were applied. Motion reduction was calculated by comparing L5-S1 motion across the ALIF and non-ALIF states. RESULTS: The average motion at L5-S1 in axial rotation, flexion-extension, and lateral bending was assessed for each fusion construct with and without ALIF. After adding ALIF to a posterior fusion, L5-S1 motion was significantly reduced relative to the non-ALIF state in all but one fused surgical condition (p < 0.05). Longer fusions with ALIF produced larger L5-S1 motions, and in some cases resulted in motions higher than native state motion. CONCLUSIONS: Posterior fusion constructs up to L4-5 could be appropriately stabilized by a stand-alone L5-S1 ALIF when using a nominal threshold of 80% reduction in native motion as a potential positive indicator of fusion. The results of this study allow conclusions to be drawn from a biomechanical standpoint; however, the clinical implications of these data are not well defined. These findings, when taken in appropriate clinical context, can be used to better guide clinicians seeking to treat L5-S1 pathology in patients with prior posterior thoracolumbar constructs.