Supplemental rods are needed to maximally reduce rod strain across the lumbosacral junction with TLIF but not ALIF in long constructs

High-Demand Spinal Deformity With Multi-Rod Constructs and Porous Fusion/Fixation Implants: A Finite Element Study

STUDY DESIGN

Basic science (finite element analysis).

OBJECTIVES

Pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) at L5 is an effective treatment for sagittal imbalance, especially in select cases of patients showing kyphosis with the apex at L4-L5 but has been scarcely investigated. The aim of this study was to simulate various "high-demand" instrumentation approaches, including varying numbers of rods and sacropelvic implants, for the stabilization of a PSO at L5.

METHODS

A finite element model of T10-pelvis was modified to simulate posterior fixation with pedicle screws and rods from T10 to S1, alone or in combination with an L5 PSO. Five additional configurations were then created by employing rods and novel porous fusion/fixation implants across the sacroiliac joints, in varying numbers. All models were loaded using pure moments of 7.5 Nm in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation.

RESULTS

The osteotomy resulted in a general increase in motion and stresses in posterior rods and S1 pedicle screws. When the number of rods was varied, three- and four-rod configurations were effective in limiting the maximal rod stresses; values approached those of posterior fixation with no osteotomy. Maximum stresses in the accessory rods were similar to or less than those observed in the primary rods. Multiple sacropelvic implants were effective in reducing range of motion, particularly of the SIJ.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-rod constructs and sacropelvic fixation generally reduced maximal implant stresses and motion in comparison with standard posterior fixation, suggesting a reduced risk of rod breakage and increased joint stability, respectively, when a high-demand construct is utilized for the correction of sagittal imbalance.

The "Sandwich" Extended Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy for the Treatment of Fixed Sagittal Malalignment: Technical Description, Case Series, and Early Results With 2-Year Outcomes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Adult spinal deformity (ASD) with fixed sagittal malalignment (FSM) may require a pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) for greater focal lordosis and restoration of global alignment. Despite growing trends in minimizing PSOs given their associated high risks, a considerable portion of patients with ASD still require a lumbar PSO most commonly because of iatrogenic flat back deformity. The purpose of this article is to describe a modified extended PSO technique with additional anterior column support coined the "sandwich" extended PSO (SE-PSO) to promote arthrodesis and report the outcomes in a consecutive case series.

METHODS

Patients with ASD treated with a lumbar SE-PSO at a single institution from 2015 to 2020 were analyzed. Complications, radiographic data, and patient-reported outcomes were compared preoperatively, at immediate postoperative follow-up, and at a 2-year postoperative follow-up (FU).

RESULTS

Fourteen patients who underwent revision operations for FSM were included. Improvements in segmental lordosis across the PSO site (14.8 ± 6.8 vs 39.9 ± 7.1, P < .0001), overall lumbar lordosis (14.6 ± 15.4 vs 44.6 ± 12.1, P < .0001), sacral slope (21.0 ± 10.5 31.1 ± 10.7, P = .0150), C7 sagittal vertical axis (140.1 ± 59.0 mm vs 35.9 ± 28.5, P < .0001), and spinopelvic mismatch (52.5 ± 21.3 vs 18.6 ± 14.1, P = .0001) were obtained in all patients. Eight patients experienced perioperative complications, with intraoperative durotomy being the most common (n = 7). Eight patients had a 2-year FU and demonstrated improvements in their segmental lordosis across the PSO site (14.3 ± 7.0 vs 41.3 ± 7.3, P = .0003), overall lumbar lordosis (8.7 ± 17.8 vs 46.1 ± 14.2, P = .0014), sacral slope (19.1 ± 12.8 vs 32.3 ± 12.5, P = .0479), C7 sagittal vertical axis (173.6 ± 54.4 mm vs 35.8 ± 30.0, P < .0001), and spinopelvic mismatch (63.0 ± 19.7 vs 21.1 ± 18.3, P < .0001), all of which were maintained at final FU (P > .05). At 2 years, a significant increase in Scoliosis Research Society-22r total score (2.5 ± 0.8 vs 3.6 ± 0.7, P = .0023 was reported. There were no reports of symptomatic pseudarthrosis or mechanical complications.

CONCLUSION

SE-PSO is an effective technique to correct FSM and is associated with low complications, improved patient-reported outcomes, and spinopelvic parameters that are maintained at 2 years.

Comparison of complications, revisions, spinopelvic parameters, and health-related quality of life after posterior spinal fusion using multiple-rod constructs or two-rod constructs for adult spinal deformity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The incidence of mechanical complications is high in patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for adult spinal deformity (ASD), especially for cases with severe sagittal malalignment or a prior spinal fusion requiring three-column osteotomy (3-CO) or spinopelvic fixation (SPF). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the complications, revisions, radiographic spinopelvic parameters, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and surgical data of PSF using multiple-rod constructs to those of two-rod constructs for the treatment of ASD.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed for relevant studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Complications, revisions, spinopelvic parameters, HRQoL, and surgical date were compared between patients with ASD who underwent PSF using multiple-rod constructs (multi-rod group) and two-rod constructs (two-rod group).

RESULTS

Ten studies, comprising 797 patients with ASD (399 in the multi-rod group and 398 in the two-rod group), were included. All these studies were retrospective cohort studies. There were no significant differences in the surgical, wound-related, and systemic complications between the groups. In the multi-rod group, we noted a significantly lower incidence of rod fracture (RR, 0.43; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.57, P < 0.01), pseudoarthrosis (RR, 0.38; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.53, P < 0.01), and revisions (RR, 0.44; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.58, P < 0.01); a superior restoration of PI-LL (WMD, 3.96; 95% CI 1.03 to 6.88, P < 0.01) and SVA (WMD, 31.53; 95% CI 21.16 to 41.90, P < 0.01); a better improvement of ODI score (WMD, 6.82; 95% CI 2.33 to 11.31, P < 0.01), SRS-22 total score (WMD, 0.44; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.83, P = 0.02), and VAS-BP score (WMD, 1.02; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.73, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the two-rod constructs, PSF using multiple-rod constructs was associated with a lower incidence of mechanical complications, a lower revision rate, a superior restoration of sagittal alignment, and a better improvement of HRQoL, without increasing surgical invasiveness. Multiple-rod constructs should be routinely considered to for ASD patients, especially for cases with severe sagittal malalignment or a prior spinal fusion requiring 3-CO or SPF.

Rod Attachment Induces Significant Strain in Lumbosacral Fixation

STUDY DESIGN

This was a laboratory investigation.

OBJECTIVE

Rod attachment can induce significant pedicle screw-and-rod pre- strain that may predispose the instrumentation to failure. This study investigated how in vitro L5-S1 rod strain and S1 screw strain during rod-screw attachment (pre-strain) compared with strains recorded during pure-moment bending ( test- strain).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The lumbosacral junction is highly vulnerable to construct failure due to rod fatigue fracture, sacral screw pull-out, and screw fatigue fracture.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve cadaveric specimens were instrumented with L2-ilium pedicle screws and rod. Strain gauges on contoured rods and sacral screws recorded strains during sequential rod-to-screw tightening (pre-strains). The same instrumented constructs were immediately tested in a 6-degree-of-freedom apparatus under continuous loading to 7.5 Nm in multidirectional bending while recording instrumentation test-strains. Rod and screw pre-strains and test-strains were compared using 1-way repeated-measures analysis of variance followed by Holm-Šidák paired analysis (significant at P <0.05).

RESULTS

The mean first (171±192 µE) and second (322±269 µE) rod attachment pre-strains were comparable to mean test-strains during flexion (265±109 µE) and extension (315±125 µE, P ≥0.13). The mean rod attachment pre-strain was significantly greater than mean test-strains during bidirectional lateral bending (40±32 µE ipsilateral and 39±32 µE contralateral, P <0.001) and axial rotation (72±60 µE ipsilateral and 60±57 µE contralateral, P <0.001). The mean first and second sacral screw pre-strains during rod attachment (1.03±0.66 and 1.39±1.00 Nm, respectively) did not differ significantly ( P =0.41); however, the mean sacral screw pre-strain during final (second) rod attachment was significantly greater than screw test-strains during all directions of movement (≤0.81 Nm, P ≤0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Instrumentation pre-strains imposed during in vitro rod-screw attachment of seemingly well-contoured rods in L2-ilium fixation are comparable to, and at times greater than, strains experienced during in vitro bending. Spine surgeons should be aware of the biomechanical consequences of rod contouring and attachment on construct vulnerability.

Biomechanical evaluation of multiple pelvic screws and multirod construct for the augmentation of lumbosacral junction in long spinal fusion surgery

Background: Posterior long spinal fusion was the common procedure for adult spinal deformity (ASD). Although the application of sacropelvic fixation (SPF), the incidence of pseudoarthrosis and implant failure is still high in long spinal fusion extending to lumbosacral junction (LSJ). To address these mechanical complications, advanced SPF technique by multiple pelvic screws or multirod construct has been recommended. This was the first study to compare the biomechanical performance of combining multiple pelvic screws and multirod construct to other advanced SPF constructs for the augmentation of LSJ in long spinal fusion surgery through finite element (FE) analysis.

Methods: An intact lumbopelvic FE model based on computed tomography images of a healthy adult male volunteer was constructed and validated. The intact model was modified to develop five instrumented models, all of which had bilateral pedicle screw (PS) fixation from L1 to S1 with posterior lumbar interbody fusion and different SPF constructs, including No-SPF, bilateral single S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) screw and single rod (SS-SR), bilateral multiple S2AI screws and single rod (MS-SR), bilateral single S2AI screw and multiple rods (SS-MR), and bilateral multiple S2AI screws and multiple rods (MS-MR). The range of motion (ROM) and stress on instrumentation, cages, sacrum, and S1 superior endplate (SEP) in flexion (FL), extension (EX), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) were compared among models.

Results: Compared with intact model and No-SPF, the ROM of global lumbopelvis, LSJ, and sacroiliac joint (SIJ) was decreased in SS-SR, MS-SR, SS-MR, and MS-MR in all directions. Compared with SS-SR, the ROM of global lumbopelvis and LSJ of MS-SR, SS-MR, and MS-MR further decreased, while the ROM of SIJ was only decreased in MS-SR and MS-MR. The stress on instrumentation, cages, S1-SEP, and sacrum decreased in SS-SR, compared with no-SPF. Compared with SS-SR, the stress in EX and AR further decreased in SS-MR and MS-SR. The most significantly decreased ROM and stress were observed in MS-MR.

Conclusion: Both multiple pelvic screws and multirod construct could increase the mechanical stability of LSJ and reduce stress on instrumentation, cages, S1-SEP, and sacrum. The MS-MR construct was the most adequate to reduce the risk of lumbosacral pseudarthrosis, implant failure, and sacrum fracture. This study may provide surgeons with important evidence for the application of MS-MR construct in the clinical settings.

Incidence, mechanism, and protective strategies for 2-year pelvic fixation failure after adult spinal deformity surgery with a minimum six-level fusion

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence, mechanism, and potential protective strategies for pelvic fixation failure (PFF) within 2 years after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery.

METHODS

Data for ASD patients (age ≥ 18 years, minimum of six instrumented levels) with pelvic fixation (S2-alar-iliac [S2AI] and/or iliac screws) with a minimum 2-year follow-up were consecutively collected (2015-2019). Patients with prior pelvic fixation were excluded. PFF was defined as any revision to pelvic screws, which may include broken rods across the lumbosacral junction requiring revision to pelvic screws, pseudarthrosis across the lumbosacral junction requiring revision to pelvic screws, a broken or loose pelvic screw, or sacral/iliac fracture. Patient information including demographic data and health history (age, sex, BMI, smoking status, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, osteoporosis), operative (total instrumented levels [TIL], three-column osteotomy [3CO], interbody fusion), screw (iliac, S2AI, length, diameter), rod (diameter, kickstand), rod pattern (number crossing lumbopelvic junction, lowest instrumented vertebra [LIV] of accessory rod[s], lateral connectors, dual-headed screws), and pre- and postradiographic (lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, major Cobb angle, lumbosacral fractional curve, C7 coronal vertical axis [CVA], T1 pelvic angle, C7 sagittal vertical axis) parameters was collected. All rods across the lumbosacral junction were cobalt-chrome. All iliac and S2AI screws were closed-headed tulips. Both univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine risk factors for PFF.

RESULTS

Of 253 patients (mean age 58.9 years, mean TIL 13.6, 3CO 15.8%, L5-S1 interbody 74.7%, mean pelvic screw diameter/length 8.6/87 mm), the 2-year failure rate was 4.3% (n = 11). The mechanisms of failure included broken rods across the lumbosacral junction (n = 4), pseudarthrosis across the lumbosacral junction requiring revision to pelvic screws (n = 3), broken pelvic screw (n = 1), loose pelvic screw (n = 1), sacral/iliac fracture (n = 1), and painful/prominent pelvic screw (n = 1). A higher number of rods crossing the lumbopelvic junction (mean 3.8 no failure vs 2.9 failure, p = 0.009) and accessory rod LIV to S2/ilium (no failure 54.2% vs failure 18.2%, p = 0.003) were protective for failure. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that accessory rod LIV to S2/ilium versus S1 (OR 0.2, p = 0.004) and number of rods crossing the lumbar to pelvis (OR 0.15, p = 0.002) were protective, while worse postoperative CVA (OR 1.5, p = 0.028) was an independent risk factor for failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2-year PFF rate was low relative to what is reported in the literature, despite patients undergoing long fusion constructs for ASD. The number of rods crossing the lumbopelvic junction and accessory rod LIV to S2/ilium relative to S1 alone likely increase construct stiffness. Residual postoperative coronal malalignment should be avoided to reduce PFF.

How common is acute pelvic fixation failure after adult spine surgery? A single-center study of 358 patients

OBJECTIVE

There is a paucity of literature on pelvic fixation failure after adult spine surgery in the early postoperative period. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of acute pelvic fixation failure in a large single-center study and to describe the lessons learned.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective review of adult (≥ 18 years old) patients who underwent spinal fusion with pelvic fixation (iliac, S2-alar-iliac [S2AI] screws) at a single academic medical center between 2015 and 2020. All patients had a minimum of 3 instrumented levels. The minimum follow-up was 6 months after the index spine surgery. Patients with prior pelvic fixation were excluded. Acute pelvic fixation failure was defined as revision of the pelvic screws within 6 months of the primary surgery. Patient demographics and operative, radiographic, and rod/screw parameters were collected. All rods were cobalt-chrome. All iliac and S2AI screws were closed-headed screws.

RESULTS

In 358 patients, the mean age was 59.5 ± 13.6 years, and 64.0% (n = 229) were female. The mean number of instrumented levels was 11.5 ± 5.5, and 79.1% (n = 283) had ≥ 6 levels fused. Three-column osteotomies were performed in 14.2% (n = 51) of patients, and 74.6% (n = 267) had an L5-S1 interbody fusion. The mean diameter/length of pelvic screws was 8.5/86.6 mm. The mean number of pelvic screws was 2.2 ± 0.5, the mean rod diameter was 6.0 ± 0 mm, and 78.5% (n = 281) had > 2 rods crossing the lumbopelvic junction. Accessory rods extended to S1 (32.7%, n = 117) or S2/ilium (45.8%, n = 164). Acute pelvic fixation failure occurred in 1 patient (0.3%); this individual had a broken S2AI screw near the head-neck junction. This 76-year-old woman with degenerative lumbar scoliosis and chronic lumbosacral zone 1 fracture nonunion had undergone posterior instrumented fusion from T10 to pelvis with bilateral S2AI screws (8.5 × 90 mm); i.e., transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion L4-S1. The patient had persistent left buttock pain postoperatively, with radiographically confirmed breakage of the left S2AI screw 68 days after surgery. Revision included instrumentation removal at L2-pelvis and a total of 4 pelvic screws.

CONCLUSIONS

The acute pelvic fixation failure rate was exceedingly low in adult spine surgery. This rate may be the result of multiple factors including the preference for multirod (> 2), closed-headed pelvic screw constructs in which large-diameter long screws are used. Increasing the number of rods and screws at the lumbopelvic junction may be important factors to consider, especially for patients with high risk for nonunion.

Adding sacral anchors through an S1 alar screw and multirod construct as a strategy for lumbosacral junction augmentation: an in vitro comparison to S1 pedicle screws alone with sacroiliac fixation

OBJECTIVE

Achieving solid fusion of the lumbosacral junction continues to be a challenge in long-segment instrumentation to the sacrum. The purpose of this study was to test the condition of adding sacral anchors through an S1 alar screw (S1AS) and multirod construct relative to using S1 pedicle screws (S1PSs) alone with sacroiliac fixation in lumbosacral junction augmentation.

METHODS

Seven fresh-frozen human lumbar-pelvic spine cadaveric specimens were tested under nondestructive moments (7.5 Nm). The ranges of motion (ROMs) in extension, flexion, left and right lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) of instrumented segments (L3-S1); the lumbosacral region (L5-S1); and the adjacent segment (L2-3) were measured, and the axial construct stiffness (ACS) was recorded. The testing conditions were 1) intact; 2) bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) fixation at L3-S1 (S1PS alone); 3) BPS and unilateral S2 alar iliac screw (U-S2AIS) fixation; 4) BPS and unilateral S1AS (U-S1AS) fixation; 5) BPS and bilateral S2AIS (B-S2AIS) fixation; and 6) BPS and bilateral S1AS (B-S1AS) fixation. Accessory rods were used in testing conditions 3-6.

RESULTS

In all directions, the ROMs of L5-S1 and L3-S1 were significantly reduced in B-S1AS and B-S2AIS conditions, compared with intact and S1PS alone. There was no significant difference in reduction of the ROMs of L5-S1 between B-S1ASs and B-S2AISs. Greater decreased ROMs of L3-S1 in extension and AR were detected with B-S2AISs than with B-S1ASs. Both B-S1ASs and B-S2AISs significantly increased the ACS compared with S1PSs alone. The ACS of B-S2AISs was significantly greater than that of B-S1ASs, but with greater increased ROMs of L2-3 in extension.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding sacral anchors through S1ASs and a multirod construct was as effective as sacropelvic fixation in lumbosacral junction augmentation. The ACS was less than the sacropelvic fixation but with lower ROMs of the adjacent segment. The biomechanical effects of using S1ASs in the control of long-instrumented segments were moderate (better than S1PSs alone but worse than sacropelvic fixation). This strategy is appropriate for patients requiring advanced lumbosacral fixation, and the risk of sacroiliac joint violation can be avoided.

Failure in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Comprehensive Review of Current Rates, Mechanisms, and Prevention Strategies

STUDY DESIGN

Literature review.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review is to summarize recent literature on adult spinal deformity (ASD) treatment failure as well as prevention strategies for these failure modes.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There is substantial evidence that ASD surgery can provide significant clinical benefits to patients. The volume of ASD surgery is increasing, and significantly more complex procedures are being performed, especially in the aging population with multiple comorbidities. Although there is potential for significant improvements in pain and disability with ASD surgery, these procedures continue to be associated with major complications and even outright failure.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed database was performed for articles relevant to failure after ASD surgery. Institutional review board approval was not needed.

RESULTS

Failure and the potential need for revision surgery generally fall into 1 of 4 well-defined phenotypes: clinical failure, radiographic failure, the need for reoperation, and lack of cost-effectiveness. Revision surgery rates remain relatively high, challenging the overall cost-effectiveness of these procedures.

CONCLUSION

By consolidating the key evidence regarding failure, further research and innovation may be stimulated with the goal of significantly improving the safety and cost-effectiveness of ASD surgery.

Influence of double rods and interbody cages on range of motion and rod stress after spinopelvic instrumentation: a finite element study

PURPOSE

To compare instrumentation configurations consisting of bilateral single or double rods and additional interbody cages (IBCs) at different levels in terms of Range of Motion (ROM) and distribution of von Mises stress in rods.

METHODS

A previously validated L1-pelvis finite element model was used and instrumented with configurations consisting of single or double bilateral rods and IBCs at multiple levels. Pure moments of 7.5 N.m were applied to L1 in main directions in addition to a follower load of 280 N. Global, segmental ROM and distribution of von Mises stress in rods were studied.

RESULTS

All configurations reduced segmental and global ROM from 50 to 100% compared to the intact spine. Addition of IBCs slightly increased ROM at levels adjacent to the IBC placement. The simple rod configuration presented the highest von Mises stress (457 MPa) in principal rods at L5-S1 in flexion. Doubling rods and IBC placement reduced this value and shifted the location of maximum von Mises stress to other regions. Among studied configurations, double rods with IBCs at all levels (L2-S1) showed the lowest ROM. Maximal von Mises stresses in secondary rods were lower in comparison to main rods.

CONCLUSIONS

Double rods and IBCs reduced global and segmental ROM as well as von Mises stress in rods. The results suggest a possible benefit in using both strategies to minimize pseudarthrosis and instrumentation failure. However, increased ROM in adjacent levels and the shift of maximal von Mises stress to adjacent areas might cause complications elsewhere.

Radiographic comparison of lordotic and hyperlordotic implants in L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion

OBJECTIVE

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) used at the lumbosacral junction provides arthrodesis for several indications. The anterior approach allows restoration of lumbar lordosis, an important goal of surgery. With hyperlordotic ALIF implants, several options may be employed to obtain the desired amount of lordosis. In this study, the authors compared the degree of radiographic lordosis achieved with lordotic and hyperlordotic ALIF implants at the L5-S1 segment.

METHODS

All patients undergoing L5-S1 ALIF from 2 institutions over a 4-year interval were included. Patients < 18 years of age or those with any posterior decompression or osteotomy were excluded. ALIF implants in the lordotic group had 8° or 12° of inherent lordosis, whereas implants in the hyperlordotic group had 20° or 30° of lordosis. Upright standing radiographs were used to determine all radiographic parameters, including lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis, disc space lordosis, and disc space height. Separate analyses were performed for patients who underwent single-segment fixation at L5-S1 and for the overall cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 204 patients were included (hyperlordotic group, 93 [45.6%]; lordotic group, 111 [54.4%]). Single-segment ALIF at L5-S1 was performed in 74 patients (hyperlordotic group, 27 [36.5%]; lordotic group, 47 [63.5%]). The overall mean ± SD age was 61.9 ± 12.3 years; 58.3% of patients (n = 119) were women. The mean number of total segments fused was 3.2 ± 2.6. Overall, 66.7% (n = 136) of patients had supine surgery and 33.3% (n = 68) had lateral surgery. Supine positioning was significantly more common in the hyperlordotic group than in the lordotic group (83.9% [78/93] vs 52.3% [58/111], p < 0.001). After adjusting for differences in surgical positioning, the change in lumbar lordosis was significantly greater for hyperlordotic versus lordotic implants (3.6° ± 7.5° vs 0.4° ± 7.5°, p = 0.048) in patients with single-level fusion. For patients receiving hyperlordotic versus lordotic implants, changes were also significantly greater for segmental lordosis (12.4° ± 7.5° vs 8.4° ± 4.9°, p = 0.03) and disc space lordosis (15.3° ± 5.4° vs 9.3° ± 5.8°, p < 0.001) after single-level fusion at L5-S1. The change in disc space height was similar for these 2 groups (p = 0.23).

CONCLUSIONS

Hyperlordotic implants provided a greater degree of overall lumbar lordosis restoration as well as L5-S1 segmental and disc space lordosis restoration than lordotic implants. The change in disc space height was similar. Differences in lateral and supine positioning did not affect these parameters.

Use of digital imaging correlation techniques for full-field strain distribution analysis of implantable devices and tissue in spinal biomechanics research

Few studies have used optical full-field surface strain mapping to study spinal biomechanics. We used a commercial digital imaging correlation (DIC) system to (1) compare posterior surface strains on spinal rods with those obtained from conventional foil strain gauges, (2) quantify bony vertebral body and intervertebral disc (IVD) surface strains on 3 L3-S cadaveric spines during gold-standard flexibility tests (7.5-Nm flexion-extension and 400-N compression), and (3) report our experience with the application and feasibility of DIC to comprehensively map strain in spinal biomechanics. Spinal rods were tested under zero load and using ASTM F1717 standard. For rod strain measures, the largest mean bias offset and baseline noise standard deviation under zero load for DIC were 7.6 με and 33.7 με, respectively. For tissue measures, the largest mean bias offset was 8 με for ε1 and -55 με for ε2 with baseline noise standard deviations of 19 με and 26 με, respectively. On average, DIC rod strain measurements were 5.3% less than strain gauge measurements throughout the load range. Principal IVD and bony surface strains were consistently measurable and showed marked regional differences in strain patterns under different load conditions. Strains measured on spinal rods using DIC techniques reasonably agreed with standard strain gauge measurements. Subregional strain analyses on soft and hard spinal tissues during standard flexibility tests were feasible. Optical strain mapping is a viable, accurate, and promising measurement technique for novel spinal biomechanical studies.

The lexicon of multirod constructs in adult spinal deformity: a concise description of when, why, and how

The use of multirod constructs in the setting of adult spinal deformity (ASD) began to prevent rod fracture and pseudarthrosis near the site of pedicle subtraction osteotomies (PSOs) and 3-column osteotomies (3COs). However, there has been unclear and inconsistent nomenclature, both clinically and in the literature, for the various techniques of supplemental rod implantation. In this review the authors aim to provide the first succinct lexicon of multirod constructs available for the treatment of ASD, providing a universal nomenclature and definition for each type of supplementary rod. The primary rod of ASD constructs is the longest rod that typically spans from the bottom of the construct to the upper instrumented vertebrae. The secondary rod is shorter than the primary rod, but is connected directly to pedicle screws, albeit fewer of them, and connects to the primary rod via lateral connectors or cross-linkers. Satellite rods are a 4-rod technique in which 2 rods span only the site of a 3CO via pedicle screws at the levels above and below, and are not connected to the primary rod (hence the term "satellite"). Accessory rods are connected to the primary rods via side connectors and buttress the primary rod in areas of high rod strain, such as at a 3CO or the lumbosacral junction. Delta rods span the site of a 3CO, typically a PSO, and are not contoured to the newly restored lordosis of the spine, thus buttressing the primary rod above and below a 3CO. The kickstand rod itself functions as an additional means of restoring coronal balance and is secured to a newly placed iliac screw on the side of truncal shift and connected to the primary rod; distracting against the kickstand then helps to correct the concavity of a coronal curve. The use of multirod constructs has dramatically increased over the last several years in parallel with the increasing prevalence of ASD correction surgery. However, ambiguity persists both clinically and in the literature regarding the nomenclature of each supplemental rod. This nomenclature of supplemental rods should help unify the lexicon of multirod constructs and generalize their usage in a variety of scientific and clinical scenarios.

Is L5/S1 interbody fusion necessary in long-segment surgery for adult degenerative scoliosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

There is no consensus regarding the best surgical strategy at the lumbosacral junction (LSJ) in long constructs for adult spinal deformity (ASD). The use of interbody fusion (IF) has been advocated to increase fusion rates, with additional pelvic fixation (PF) typically recommended. The actual benefit of IF even when extending to the pelvis, however, has not been vigorously analyzed. The goal of this work was to better understand the role of IF, specifically with respect to arthrodesis, when extending long constructs to the ilium.

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed and Cochrane databases was performed to identify the relevant studies in English, addressing the management of LSJ in long constructs (defined as ≥ 5 levels) in ASD. The search terms used were as follows: "Lumbosacral Junction," "Long Constructs," "Long Fusion to the Sacrum," "Sacropelvic Fixation," "Interbody Fusion," and "Iliac Screw." The authors excluded technical notes, case reports, literature reviews, and cadaveric studies; pediatric populations; pathologies different from ASD; studies not using conventional techniques; and studies focused only on alignment of different levels.

RESULTS

The PRISMA protocol was used. The authors found 12 retrospective clinical studies with a total of 1216 patients who were sorted into 3 different categories: group 1, using PF or not (n = 6); group 2, using PF with or without IF (n = 5); and group 3, from 1 study comparing anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Five studies in group 1 and 4 in group 2 had pseudarthrosis rate as primary outcome and were selected for a quantitative analysis. Forest plots were used to display the risk ratio, and funnel plots were used to look at the risk of publication bias. The summary risk ratios were 0.36 (0.23-0.57, p < 0.001) and 1.03 (0.54-1.96, p = 0.94) for the PF and IF, respectively; there is a protective effect of overall pseudarthrosis for using PF in long constructs for ASD surgeries, but not for using IF.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-held contention that L5/S1 IF is always advantageous in long-construct deformity surgery is not supported by the current literature. Based on the findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis, PF with or without additional L5/S1 interbody grafting demonstrates similar overall construct pseudarthrosis rates. The added risk and costs associated with IF, therefore, should be more closely considered on a case-by-case basis.

Assessment of L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion stability in the setting of lengthening posterior instrumentation constructs: a cadaveric biomechanical study

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.

Influence of Lumbar Lordosis on Posterior Rod Strain in Long-Segment Construct During Biomechanical Loading: A Cadaveric Study

Objective

The lordotic shape of the lumbar spine differs substantially between individuals. Measuring and recording strain during spinal biomechanical tests is an effective method to infer stresses on spinal implants and predict failure mechanisms. The geometry of the spine may have a significant effect on the resultant force distribution, thereby directly affecting rod strain.

Methods

Seven fresh-frozen cadaveric specimens (T12-sacrum) underwent standard (7.5 Nm) nondestructive sagittal plane tests: flexion and extension. The conditions tested were intact and pedicle screws and rods (PSR) at L1-sacrum. The posterior right rod was instrumented with strain gauges between L3–4 (index level) and the L5–S1 pedicle screw. All specimens underwent lateral radiographs before testing. Lordotic angles encompassing different levels (L5–S1, L4–S1, L3–S1, L2–S1, and L1–S1) were measured and compared with rod strain. Data were analyzed using Pearson correlation analyses.

Results

Strong positive correlations were observed between lordosis and posterior rod strain across different conditions. The L3–S1 lordotic angle in the unloaded intact condition correlated with peak rod strain at L3–4 with PSR during flexion (R=0.76, p=0.04). The same angle in the unloaded PSR condition correlated with peak strain in the PSR condition during extension (R=-0.79, p=0.04). The unloaded intact L2–S1 lordotic angle was significantly correlated with rod strain at L3–4 in the PSR condition during flexion (R=0.85, p=0.02) and extension (R=-0.85, p=0.02) and with rod strain at L5–S1 in the PSR condition during flexion (R=0.84, p=0.04).

Conclusion

Lordosis measured on intact and instrumented conditions has strong positive correlations with posterior rod strain in cadaveric testing.

Development of a flexible instrumented lumbar spine finite element model and comparison with in-vitro experiments

Surgical corrections of degenerative lumbar scoliosis and sagittal malalignment are associated with significant complications, such as rod fractures and pseudarthrosis, particularly in the lumbosacral junction. Finite element studies can provide relevant insights to improve performance of spinal implants. The aim of the present study was to present the development of non-instrumented and instrumented Finite Element Models (FEMs) of the lumbopelvic spine and to compare numerical results with experimental data available in the literature. The lumbo-pelvic spine FEM was based on a CT-scan from an asymptomatic volunteer representing the 50th percentile male. In a first step a calibration of mechanical properties was performed in order to obtain a quantitative agreement between numerical results and experimental data for defect stages of spinal segments. Then, FEM results were compared in terms of range of motion and strains in rods to in-vitro experimental data from the literature for flexible non-instrumented and instrumented lumbar spines. Numerical results from the calibration process were consistent with experimental data, especially in flexion. A positive agreement was obtained between FEM and experimental results for the lumbar and sacroiliac segments. Instrumented FEMs predicted the same trends as experimental in-vitro studies. The instrumentation configuration consisting of double rods and an interbody cage at L5-S1 maximally reduced range of motion and strains in main rods and thus had the lowest risk of pseudarthrosis and rod fracture. The developed FEMs were found to be consistent with published experimental results; therefore they can be used for further post-operative complication investigations.

Biomechanical effects of a novel posteriorly placed sacroiliac joint fusion device integrated with traditional lumbopelvic long-construct instrumentation

OBJECTIVE

S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) screw fixation effectively ensures stability and enhances fusion in long-segment constructs. Nevertheless, pelvic fixation is associated with a high rate of mechanical failure. Because of the transarticular nature of the S2AI screw, adding a second point of fixation may provide additional stability and attenuate strains. The objective of the study was to evaluate changes in stability and strain with the integration of a sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion device, implanted through a novel posterior SI approach, supplemental to posterior long-segment fusion.

METHODS

L1-pelvis human cadaveric specimens underwent pure moment (7.5 Nm) and compression (400 N) tests in the following conditions: 1) intact, 2) L2-S1 pedicle screw and rod fixation with L5-S1 interbody fusion, 3) added S2AI screws, and 4) added bilateral SI joint fixation (SIJF). The range of motion (ROM), rod strain, and screw bending moments (S1 and S2AI) were analyzed.

RESULTS

S2AI fixation decreased L2-S1 ROM in flexion-extension (p ≤ 0.04), L5-S1 ROM in flexion-extension and compression (p ≤ 0.004), and SI joint ROM during flexion-extension and lateral bending (p ≤ 0.03) compared with S1 fixation. SI joint ROM was significantly less with SIJF in place than with the intact joint, S1, and S2AI fixation in flexion-extension and lateral bending (p ≤ 0.01). The S1 screw bending moment decreased following S2AI fixation by as much as 78% in extension, but with statistical significance only in right axial rotation (p = 0.03). Extending fixation to S2AI significantly increased the rod strain at L5-S1 during flexion, axial rotation, and compression (p ≤ 0.048). SIJF was associated with a slight increase in rod strain versus S2AI fixation alone at L5-S1 during left lateral bending (p = 0.048). Compared with the S1 condition, fixation to S2AI increased the mean rod strain at L5-S1 during compression (p = 0.048). The rod strain at L5-S1 was not statistically different with SIJF compared with S2AI fixation (p ≥ 0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Constructs ending with an S2AI screw versus an S1 screw tended to be more stable, with reduced SI joint motion. S2AI fixation decreased the S1 screw bending moments compared with fixation ending at S1. These benefits were paired with increased rod strain at L5-S1. Supplementation of S2AI fixation with SIJF implants provided further reductions (approximately 30%) in the sagittal plane and lateral bending SI joint motion compared with fixation ending at the S2AI position. This stability was not paired with significant changes in rod or screw strains.

Comparison of degenerative lumbar scoliosis correction and risk for mechanical failure using posterior 2-rod instrumentation versus 4-rod instrumentation and interbody fusion

PURPOSE

Four-rod instrumentation and interbody fusion may reduce mechanical complications in degenerative scoliosis surgery compared to 2-rod instrumentation. The purpose was to compare clinical results, sagittal alignment and mechanical complications with both techniques.

METHODS

Full spine radiographs were analysed in 97 patients instrumented to the pelvis: 58 2-rod constructs (2R) and 39 4-rod constructs (4R). Clinical scores (VAS, ODI, SRS-22, EQ-5D-3L) were assessed preoperatively, at 3 months, 1 year and last follow-up (average 4.2 years). Radiographic measurements were: thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis, spinopelvic parameters, segmental lordosis distribution. The incidence of non-union and PJK were investigated.

RESULTS

All clinical scores improved significantly in both groups between preoperative and last follow-up. In the 2R-group, lumbar lordosis increased to 52.8° postoperatively and decreased to 47.0° at follow-up (p = 0.008). In the 4R-group, lumbar lordosis increased from 46.4 to 52.5° postoperatively and remained at 53.4° at follow-up. There were 8 (13.8%) PJK in the 2R-group versus 6 (15.4%) in the 4R-group, with a mismatch between lumbar apex and theoretic lumbar shape according to pelvic incidence. Non-union requiring revision surgery occurred on average at 26.9 months in 28 patients (48.3%) of the 2R-group. No rod fracture was diagnosed in the 4R-group.

CONCLUSION

Multi-level interbody fusion combined with 4-rod instrumentation decreased risk for non-union and revision surgery compared to select interbody fusion and 2-rod instrumentation. The role of additional rods on load sharing still needs to be determined when multiple cages are used. Despite revision surgery in the 2R group, final clinical outcomes were similar in both groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Impact of dual-headed pedicle screws on the biomechanics of lumbosacral junction multirod constructs

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate a novel connector design and compare it with traditional side connectors, such as a fixed-angle connector (FAC) and a variable-angle connector (VAC), with respect to lumbosacral stability and instrumentation strain.

METHODS

Standard nondestructive flexibility tests (7.5 Nm) and compression tests (400 N) were performed using 7 human cadaveric specimens (L1-ilium) to compare range of motion (ROM) stability, posterior rod strain (RS), and sacral screw bending moment (SM). Directions of motion included flexion, extension, left and right lateral bending, left and right axial rotation, and compression. Conditions included 1) the standard 2-rod construct (2R); 2) the dual-tulip head (DTH) with 4-rod construct (4R); 3) FACs with 4R; and 4) VACs with 4R. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA.

RESULTS

Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in ROM across the lumbosacral junction among conditions (p > 0.07). Compared with 2R, DTH and FAC significantly reduced RS in extension, left axial rotation, and compression (p ≤ 0.03). VAC significantly decreased RS compared with 2R in flexion, extension, left axial rotation, right axial rotation, and compression (p ≤ 0.03), and significantly decreased RS compared with DTH in extension (p = 0.02). DTH was associated with increased SM in left and right axial rotation compared with 2R (p ≤ 0.003) and in left and right lateral bending and left and right axial rotation compared with FAC and VAC (p ≤ 0.02). FAC and VAC were associated with decreased SM compared with 2R in right and left lateral bending (p ≤ 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

RS across the lumbosacral junction can be high. Supplemental rod fixation with DTH is an effective strategy for reducing RS across the lumbosacral junction. However, the greatest reduction in RS and SM was achieved with a VAC that allowed for straight (uncontoured) accessory rod placement.

Rod fractures and nonunions after long fusion to the sacrum for primary presentation adult spinal deformity: a comparison with and without interbody fusion in the distal lumbar spine

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the prevalence and incidence rate of rod fractures (RF) in patients undergoing surgery for correction of adult spinal deformity (ASD) with or without the use of interbody fusions in the caudal levels of the fusion construct.

BACKGROUND

Data: Pseudarthrosis and rod fracture after long spinal fusion to the sacrum for correction of ASD remain a concern.

METHODS

We reviewed clinical records of patients who underwent surgery for correction of ASD between 2004 and 2014. All cases were primary (no prior spine fusion) surgeries with long fusion to the sacrum and bilateral spinopelvic fixation. Patients were dichotomized into one of two groups based on whether an interbody fusion was performed at the caudal levels of the fusion construct. The primary outcome of interest was the prevalence and incidence rate of RFs.

RESULTS

A total of 230 patients underwent a long segment fusion for correction of ASD with mean follow-up of 55 months. 117 patients had an interbody fusion (IF) while 113 patients did not (NIF). At last follow-up, there was no significant difference in the prevalence of RFs between the cohort of patients IF vs NIF (IF cohort: n = 20, 17.9% vs NIF cohort: n = 15, 14.2%, p = 0.49). However, the incidence rate for bilateral rod fractures was 1.6%/year for IF group vs 1.0%/year for NIF group (p = 0.02). Location of RF was different between the two groups; RF (unilateral and bilateral) above L4 was the most common location in the IF group (n = 17/20; 85%) compared to L4-S1 in the NIF group (n = 11/15; 73%) (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Interbody fusion does not fully protect against rod failure in the lumbar spine in ASD patients with long posterior spinal fusion and may encourage failure at L2-L4, the levels above the interbody fusion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Comprehensive In Silico Evaluation of Accessory Rod Position, Rod Material and Diameter, Use of Cross-connectors, and Anterior Column Support in a Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy Model: Part II: Effects on Lumbosacral Rod and Screw Strain

STUDY DESIGN

In silico finite element study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate effects of six construct factors on rod and screw strain at the lumbosacral junction in an in silico pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) model: traditional inline and alternative Ames-Deviren-Gupta (ADG) multi-rod techniques, number of accessory rods (three-rod vs. four-rod), rod material (cobalt-chrome [CoCr] or stainless steel [SS] vs. titanium [Ti]), rod diameter (5.5 vs. 6.35 mm), and use of cross-connectors (CC), or anterior column support (ACS).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Implant failure and pseudoarthrosis at the lumbosacral junction following PSO are frequently reported. Clinicians may modulate reconstructs with multiple rods, rod position, rod material, and diameter, and with CC or ACS to reduce mechanical demand. An evaluation of these features' effects on rod and screw strains is lacking.

METHODS

A finite element model (T12-S1) with intervertebral discs and ligaments was created and validated with cadaveric motion data. Lumbosacral rod and screw strain data were collected for 96 constructs across all six construct factors and normalized to the Ti 2-Rod control.

RESULTS

The inline technique resulted in 12.5% to 51.3% more rod strain and decreased screw strain (88.3% to 95%) compared to ADG at the lumbosacral junction. An asymmetrical strain distribution was observed in the three-rod inline technique in comparison to four-rod, which was more evenly distributed. Regardless of construct features, rod strain was significantly decreased by rod material (CoCr > SS > Ti), and increasing rod diameter from 5.5 mm to 6.35 mm reduced strain by 9.9% to 22.1%. ACS resulted in significant reduction of rod (37.8%-59.8%) and screw strains (23.2%-65.8%).

CONCLUSION

Increasing rod diameter, using CoCr rods, and ACS were the most effective methods in reducing rod strain at the lumbosacral junction. The inline technique decreased screw strain and increased rod strain compared to ADG.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.

Comprehensive Evaluation of Accessory Rod Position, Rod Material and Diameter, Use of Cross-connectors, and Anterior Column Support in a Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy Model: Part I: Effects on Apical Rod Strain: An In Vitro and In Silico Biomechanical Study

STUDY DESIGN

In silico finite element study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of six construct factors on apical rod strain in an in silico pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) model: traditional inline and alternative Ames-Deviren-Gupta (ADG) multi-rod techniques, number of accessory rods (three- vs. four-rod), rod material (cobalt-chrome [CoCr] or stainless steel [SS] vs. titanium [Ti]), rod diameter (5.5 vs. 6.35 mm), and use of cross-connectors (CC), or anterior column support (ACS).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Rod fracture following lumbar PSO is frequently reported. Clinicians may modulate reconstructs with multiple rods, rod position, rod material and diameter, and with CC or ACS to reduce mechanical demand or rod contouring. A comprehensive evaluation of these features on rod strain is lacking.

METHODS

A finite element model (T12-S1) with intervertebral discs and ligaments was created and validated with cadaveric motion data. Apical rod strain of primary and accessory rods was collected for 96 constructs across all six construct factors, and normalized to the Ti two-rod control.

RESULTS

Regardless of construct features, CoCr and SS material reduced strain across all rods by 49.1% and 38.1%, respectively; increasing rod diameter from 5.5 mm to 6.35 mm rods reduced strain by 32.0%. Use of CC or lumbosacral ACS minimally affected apical rod strain (<2% difference from constructs without CC or ACS). Compared to the ADG technique, traditional inline reconstruction reduced primary rod strain by 32.2%; however, ADG primary rod required 14.2° less rod contouring. The inline technique produced asymmetrical loading between left and right rods, only when three rods were used.

CONCLUSION

The number of rods and position of accessory rods affected strain distribution on posterior fixation. Increasing rod diameter and using CoCr rods was most effective in reducing rod strain. Neither CC nor lumbosacral ACS affected apical rod strain.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.

Scoliosis surgery in adulthood: what challenges for what outcome?

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis that has progressed over time, de novo scoliosis, and degenerative scoliosis represent different types of adult spinal deformity (ASD). Functional impairment and muscular fatigue are due to sagittal and coronal imbalance of the trunk. Surgical treatment can provide a significant improvement of three-dimensional (3D) thoracolumbar alignment, function, and health-related quality of life (QoL). A patient-specific benefit-risk assessment, including clinical expectations, comorbidities, and the spinal deformity itself, has to be done preoperatively since the risk for mechanical complications is relatively high. Minimal invasive techniques combine posterior percutaneous instrumentation and lateral interbody fusion cages which enables vertebral realignment and indirect foraminal stenosis decompression. This strategy seems appropriate in mild and moderate ASD with a limited number of degenerated segments in the lumbar spine and remaining curve flexibility. Severe ASD needs to be addressed by open surgery, which combines posterior instrumentation, interbody fusion, and osteotomies in stiff deformities. Longer posterior instrumentation of the thoracolumbar spine, the sacrum, and the pelvis carries a risk for mechanical complications such as non-union and proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK). Modern surgical techniques including circumferential lumbosacral fusion and double rods might lower the risk for non-union. Accurate sagittal alignment planning, setting the lumbar sagittal apex according to pelvic incidence, and segmental lordosis distribution, are mandatory for minimizing the risk of PJK.