In vitro fixator rod loading after transforaminal compared to anterior lumbar interbody fusion

In Vitro Biomechanical and Fluoroscopic Study of a Continuously Expandable Interbody Spacer Concerning Its Role in Insertion Force and Segmental Kinematics

STUDY DESIGN

In vitro cadaveric study.

PURPOSE

To compare biomechanical performance, trial and implant insertion, and disc distraction during implant placement, when two interbody devices, an in situ continuously expandable spacer (CES) and a traditional static spacer (SS), were used for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

Severe degenerative disc diseases necessitate surgical management via large spacers to increase the disc space for implants. Next-generation interbody devices that expand in situ minimize insertion forces, optimize fit between vertebral endplates, and limit nerve root retraction. However, the literature lacks characterization of insertion forces as well as details on other parameters of expandable and static spacers.

METHODS

Ten cadaveric segments (L5-S1) were divided into two groups (n=5) and implanted with either CES or SS. Each specimen experienced unconstrained pure moment of ±6 Nm in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation to assess the contribution of CES and SS implants in biomechanical performance. Radiographic analysis was performed during trial and implant insertion to measure distraction during spacer insertion at the posterior, central, and anterior disc regions. Pressure sensors measured the force of trial and implant insertion.

RESULTS

Biomechanical analysis showed no significant differences between CES and SS in all planes of motion. A total 2.6±0.9 strikes were required for expandable spacer trials insertion and 2.6±0.5 strikes for CES insertion. A total of 8.4±3.8 strikes were required to insert SS trials and 4.2±1.6 strikes for SS insertion. The total force per surgery was 330 N for CES and 635 N for SS. Fluoroscopic analysis revealed a significant reduction in distraction during implant insertion at the posterior and anterior disc regions (CES, 0.58 and 0.14 mm; SS, 1.04 and 0.78 mm, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Results from the three study arms reveal the potential use of expandable spacers. During implant insertion, CESs provided similar stability, required less insertion force, and significantly reduced over-distraction of the annulus compared with SS.

Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Anterior and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

Compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

ALIF and TLIF are 2 methods of achieving spinal arthrodesis. There are conflicting reports with no consensus on the optimal interbody technique to achieve successful radiographic and clinical outcomes. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of ALIF to TLIF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of multiple medical reference databases was conducted for studies comparing ALIF to TLIF. Studies that included stand-alone ALIFs were excluded. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model for heterogeneity. Radiographic outcome measures included segmental and overall lumbar lordosis, and fusion rates. Clinical outcomes measures included Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) score for back pain.

RESULTS

The search yielded 7 studies totaling 811 patients (ALIF=448, TLIF=363). ALIF was superior to TLIF in restoring segmental lumbar lordosis at L4-L5 and L5-S1 (L4-L5; P=0.013, L5-S1; P<0.001). ALIF was also superior to TLIF in restoring overall lumbar lordosis (P<0.001). However, no significant differences in fusion rates were noted between both techniques [odds ratio=0.905; 95% confidence interval, 0.458-1.789; P=0.775]. In addition, ALIF and TLIF were comparable with regards to ODI and VAS scores (ODI; P=0.184, VAS; P=0.983).

CONCLUSIONS

For the restoration of lumbar lordosis, ALIF is superior to TLIF. However, TLIF is comparable to ALIF with regards to fusion rate and clinical outcomes.

Biomechanical demands on posterior fusion instrumentation during lordosis restoration procedures

OBJECTIVE The goal of this study was to investigate the forces placed on posterior fusion instrumentation by 3 commonly used intraoperative techniques to restore lumbar lordosis: 1) cantilever bending; 2) in situ bending; and 3) compression and/or distraction of screws along posterior fusion rods. METHODS Five cadaveric torsos were instrumented with pedicle screws at the L1-5 levels. Specimens underwent each of the 3 lordosis restoration procedures. The pedicle screw pullout force was monitored in real time via strain gauges that were mounted unilaterally at each level. The degree of correction was noted through fluoroscopic imaging. The peak loads experienced on the screws during surgery, total demand on instrumentation, and resting loads after corrective maneuvers were measured. RESULTS A mean overall lordotic correction of 10.9 ± 4.7° was achieved. No statistically significant difference in lordotic correction was observed between restoration procedures. In situ bending imparted the largest loads intraoperatively with an average of 1060 ± 599.9 N, followed by compression/distraction (971 ± 534.1 N) and cantilever bending (705 ± 413.0 N). In situ bending produced the largest total demand and postoperative loads at L-1 (1879 ± 1064.1 and 487 ± 118.8 N, respectively), which were statistically higher than cantilever bending and compression/distraction (786 ± 272.1 and 138 ± 99.2 N, respectively). CONCLUSIONS In situ bending resulted in the highest mechanical demand on posterior lumbar instrumentation, as well as the largest postoperative loads at L-1. These results suggest that the forces generated with in situ bending indicate a greater chance of intraoperative instrumentation failure and postoperative proximal pedicle screw pullout when compared with cantilever bending and/or compression/distraction options. The results are aimed at optimizing correction and fusion strategies in lordosis restoration cases.

Characterization of the behavior of a novel low-stiffness posterior spinal implant under anterior shear loading on a degenerative spinal model

PURPOSE

Dynamic implants have been developed to address potential adjacent level effects due to rigid instrumentation. Rates of revision surgeries may be reduced by using improved implants in the primary surgery. Prior to clinical use, implants should be rigorously tested ex vivo. The objective of our study was to characterize the load-sharing and kinematic behavior of a novel low-stiffness spinal implant.

METHODS

A human cadaveric model of degenerative spondylolisthesis was tested in shear. Lumbar functional spinal units (N = 15) were tested under a static 300 N axial compression force and a cyclic anterior shear force (5-250 N). Translation was tracked with a motion capture system. A novel implant was compared to three standard implants with shear stiffness ranging from low to high. All implants were instrumented with strain gauges to measure the supported shear force. Each implant was affixed to each specimen, and the specimens were tested intact and in two progressively destabilized states.

RESULTS

Specimen condition and implant type affected implant load-sharing and specimen translation (p < 0.0001). Implant load-sharing increased across all degeneration-simulating specimen conditions and decreased across the three standard implants (high- to low-stiffness). Translation increased with the three standard implants (trend). The novel implant behaved similarly to the medium-stiffness implant (p > 0.2).

CONCLUSIONS

The novel implant behaved similarly to the medium-stiffness implant in both load-sharing and translation despite having a different design and stiffness. Complex implant design and specimen-implant interaction necessitate pre-clinical testing of novel implants. Further in vitro testing in axial rotation and flexion-extension is recommended as they are highly relevant loading directions for non-rigid implants.

An in vitro model of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

STUDY DESIGN

A biomechanical human cadaveric study.

OBJECTIVE

To create a biomechanical model of low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS), defined by anterior listhesis, for future testing of spinal instrumentation.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Current spinal implants are used to treat a multitude of conditions that range from herniated discs to degenerative diseases. The optimal stiffness of these instrumentation systems for each specific spinal condition is unknown. Ex vivo models representing degenerative spinal conditions are scarce in the literature. A model of DLS for implant testing will enhance our understanding of implant-spine behavior for specific populations of patients.

METHODS

Four incremental surgical destabilizations were performed on 8 lumbar functional spinal units. The facet complex and intervertebral disc were targeted to represent the tissue changes associated with DLS. After each destabilization, the specimen was tested with: (1) applied shear force (-50 to 250 N) with a constant axial compression force (300 N) and (2) applied pure moments in flexion-extension, lateral bending and axial rotation (±5 Nm). Relative motion between the 2 vertebrae was tracked with a motion capture system. The effect of specimen condition on intervertebral motion was assessed for shear and flexibility testing.

RESULTS

Shear translation increased, specimen stiffness decreased and range of motion increased with specimen destabilization (P < 0.0002). A mean anterior translation of 3.1 mm (SD 1.1 mm) was achieved only after destabilization of both the facet complex and disc. Of the 5 specimen conditions, 3 were required to achieve grade 1 DLS: (1) intact, (3) a 4-mm facet gap, and (5) a combined nucleus and annulus injury.

CONCLUSION

Destabilization of both the facet complex and disc was required to achieve anterior listhesis of 3.1 mm consistent with a grade 1 DLS under an applied shear force of 250 N. Sufficient listhesis was measured without radical specimen resection. Important anatomical structures for supporting spinal instrumentation were preserved such that this model can be used in future to characterize behavior of novel instrumentation prior to clinical trials.

Transforaminal versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion in long deformity constructs: a matched cohort analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Prospectively enrolled, retrospectively analyzed matched cohort analysis.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the relative merits of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) when performed in long deformity constructs.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Interbody fusion is frequently used at the caudal levels of long-segment spinal deformity instrumentation constructs to protect the sacral implants and enhance fusion rates. However, there is a paucity of literature regarding which technique is more efficacious.

METHODS

Forty-two patients who underwent TLIF and 42 patients who underwent ALIF were matched with respect to age, sex, comorbidities, curve magnitude, fusion length, and ALIF/TLIF level. Radiographs and clinical outcomes were compared at minimum 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Age averaged 54.0 years and instrumented vertebrae averaged 13.6. TLIFs had less operative time (481 vs. 595 min, P = 0.0007), but greater blood loss (2011 vs. 1281 mL, P = 0.0002). Overall complications (TLIF, 12/42 vs. ALIF, 15/42) and neurological complications (TLIF, 4/42 vs. ALIF, 3/42) did not differ. One pseudarthrosis occurred at an ALIF level, with none at TLIF levels. Patients who underwent ALIF began with lower SRS scores but showed more improvement (44.4 to 70.7 vs. 58.6 to 70.6, P = 0.0043). ODI scores in both groups improved similarly. Regionally, ALIFs engendered more lordosis than TLIFs at L3-S1 (gain of 6.9° vs. -2.6°, P < 0.0001) but not T12-S1 (gain of 11.5° vs. 7.9°, P = 0.29). Locally, ALIFs created more lordosis at L4-L5 (gain of 5.6° vs. -1.7°, P < 0.0001) and L5-S1 (gain of 2.5° vs. -1.4°, P = 0.022), but not at L3-L4 (gain of 5.3° vs. 4.0°, P = 0.65). Patients who underwent TLIF obtained greater correction of anteroposterior Cobb angles in lumbar (reduction of 22.4° vs. 9.9°, P < 0.0001) and lumbosacral curves (reduction of 10.3° vs. 3.4°, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Spinal deformity surgery used TLIFs rather than ALIFs resulted in shorter operative time with no difference in complication rates. ALIFs provided more segmental lordosis, whereas TLIFs afforded better correction of scoliotic curves.

Load transfer characteristics between posterior spinal implants and the lumbar spine under anterior shear loading: an in vitro investigation

STUDY DESIGN

A biomechanical human cadaveric study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the percentage of shear force supported by posterior lumbar spinal devices of varying stiffnesses under anterior shear loading in a degenerative spondylolisthesis model.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Clinical studies have demonstrated beneficial results of posterior arthrodesis for the treatment of degenerative spinal conditions with instability. Novel spinal implants are designed to correct and maintain spinal alignment, share load with the spine, and minimize adjacent level stresses. The optimal stiffness of these spinal systems is unknown. To our knowledge, low-stiffness posterior instrumentation has not been tested under an anterior shear force, a highly relevant force to be neutralized in the clinical case of degenerative spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

The effects of implant stiffness and specimen condition on implant load and intervertebral motion were assessed in a biomechanical study. Fifteen human cadaveric lumbar functional spinal units were tested under a static 300 N axial compression force and a cyclic anterior shear force (5-250 N). Implants (high-stiffness [HSI]: ø 5.5-mm titanium, medium-stiffness [MSI]: ø 6.35 × 7.2-mm oblong PEEK, and low-stiffness [LSI]: ø 5.5-mm round PEEK) instrumented with strain gauges were used to calculate loads and were tested in each of 3 specimen conditions simulating degenerative changes: intact, facet instability, and disc instability. Intervertebral motions were measured with a motion capture system.

RESULTS

As predicted, implants supported a significantly greater shear force as the specimen was progressively destabilized. Mean implant loads as a percent of the applied shear force in order of increasing specimen destabilization for the HSI were 43%, 67%, and 76%; mean implant loads for the MSI were 32%, 56%, and 77%; and mean implant loads for the LSI were 18%, 35%, and 50%. Anterior translations increased with decreasing implant stiffness and increasing specimen destabilization.

CONCLUSION

Implant shear stiffness significantly affected the load sharing between the implant and the natural spine in anterior shear ex vivo. Low-stiffness implants transferred significantly greater loads to the spine. This study supports the importance of load-sharing behavior when designing new implants.

Lumbar interbody fusion: a parametric investigation of a novel cage design with and without posterior instrumentation

INTRODUCTION

A finite element model of the L4-L5 human segment was employed to carry out a parametric biomechanical investigation of lumbar interbody fusion with a novel "sandwich" cage having an inner stiff core and two softer layers in the areas close to the endplates, with and without posterior fixation.

METHODS

Considered cage designs included: (a) cage in a homogeneous material with variable elastic modulus (19-2,000 MPa), (b) "sandwich" cage having an inner core (E=2,000 MPa) and softer layers (E=19 MPa) with variable thickness (1-2.5 mm). The latter cage was also considered in combination with posterior rods made with a material having variable elastic modulus (19-210,000 MPa). All the models were loaded with 500 N compression and moments of 7.5 Nm in flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation.

RESULTS

The homogeneous cage stabilized the segment in flexion, lateral bending and axial rotation; in extension there was a destabilization up to 60% and remarkable cage movement (1 mm). The "sandwich" cage limited this phenomenon (cage movement<0.6 mm), effectively stabilized the segment in the other directions and lowered the maximal contact pressure on the endplates, reducing the risk of subsidence. Posterior fixation reduced spinal flexibility and cage movement.

CONCLUSIONS

The soft layers of the "sandwich" cage had the potential to limit the risk of cage subsidence and to preserve a significant loading of the structure even in combination with flexible posterior instrumentation, which may have a beneficial effect in promoting bony fusion.

Biomechanical evaluation of an expandable meshed bag augmented with pedicle or facet screws for percutaneous lumbar interbody fusion

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the biomechanics of lumbar motion segments instrumented with stand-alone OptiMesh system augmented with posterior fixation using facet or pedicle screws and the efficacy of discectomy and disc distraction.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

OptiMesh bone graft containment system has been used for vertebral compression fractures and percutaneous lumbar interbody fusion. The filled mesh bag serves as the interbody device providing structural support to the motion segment being fused. No biomechanical data of this new device are available in the literature.

METHODS

Twenty-four fresh human cadaveric lumbar motion segments were divided into two groups. In the control group, multidirectional flexibility testing was conducted after an intact condition and standard transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure. In the OptiMesh group, testing was performed following intact, stand-alone OptiMesh procedure, OptiMesh with facet screws (placed using the transfacet approach), and OptiMesh with pedicle screws and rods. Range of motion (ROM) was calculated for each surgical treatment. The lordosis and disc height change of intact and instrumented specimens were measured in the lateral radiographs to evaluate the disc space distraction. In the OptiMesh group, cyclic loading in flexion extension (FE) was applied to measure cage subsidence or collapse (10,000 cycles at 6 Nm). After biomechanical testing, all the specimens were dissected to inspect the discectomy and end plate preparation. The area of discectomy was measured.

RESULTS

The mean ROM of the intact specimens was 2.7°, 7.4°, and 7.2° in axial torsion (AT), lateral bending (LB), and FE, respectively. There was no difference between the control group and OptiMesh group. The mean ROM of the stand-alone OptiMesh system decreased to 2.4°, 5.1°, and 4.3° in AT, LB, and FE. The ROM decreased to 0.9° in AT, 2.2° in LB, and 0.9° in FE with OptiMesh system and facet screws. On average, OptiMesh system with pedicle screws and rods reduced the ROM to 1.3° in AT, 1.6° in LB, and 1.1° in FE. Compared with the intact condition and stand-alone OptiMesh system, both posterior fixation options had significant statistical difference (p<.001). In AT, ROM of facet screws was lower than that of pedicle screws (p < .05). There was no statistical difference between the facet and pedicle screws in LB and FE (p > .05). The mean volume of bone graft packed into each bag was 8.3 ± 1.5 cc. The average increase of lordosis was 0.6° ± 1.0° after meshed bag was deployed. The average distraction achieved by the OptiMesh system was 1.0 ± 0.6 mm. The average prepared area of discectomy was 42% of the total disc. The disc height change after cyclic loading was 0.2 mm. No subsidence or collapse was noticed.

CONCLUSIONS

The OptiMesh system offers large volume of bone graft in the disc space with small access portals. The OptiMesh system had similar construct stability to that of standard TLIF procedure when posterior fixation was applied. However, the amount of distraction was limited without additional distraction tools. With the anterior support provided by the expandable meshed bag, facet screws had comparable construct stability to that of pedicle screws. Slightly higher stability was observed in facet screws in AT.