A Comparative Biomechanical Analysis of Stand Alone Versus Facet Screw and Pedicle Screw Augmented Lateral Interbody Arthrodesis: An In Vitro Human Cadaveric Model

Alternatives to Traditional Pedicle Screws for Posterior Fixation of the Degenerative Lumbar Spine

BACKGROUND

Traditional pedicle screws are currently the gold standard to achieve stable 3-column fixation of the degenerative lumbar spine. However, there are cases in which pedicle screw fixation may not be ideal. Due to their starting point lateral to the pars interarticularis, pedicle screws require a relatively wide dissection along with a medialized trajectory directed toward the centrally located neural elements and prevertebral vasculature. In addition, low bone mineral density remains a major risk factor for pedicle screw loosening, pullout, and pseudarthrosis. The purpose of this article is to review the indications, advantages, disadvantages, and complications associated with posterior fixation techniques of the degenerative lumbar spine beyond the traditional pedicle screws.

METHODS

Comprehensive literature searches of the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were performed for 5 methods of posterior spinal fixation, including (1) cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws, (2) transfacet screws, (3) translaminar screws, (4) spinous process plates, and (5) fusion mass screws and hooks. Articles that had been published between January 1, 1990, and January 1, 2020, were considered. Non-English-language articles and studies involving fixation of the cervical or thoracic spine were excluded from our review.

RESULTS

After reviewing over 1,700 articles pertaining to CBT and non-pedicular fixation techniques, a total of 284 articles met our inclusion criteria. CBT and transfacet screws require less-extensive exposure and paraspinal muscle dissection compared with traditional pedicle screws and may therefore reduce blood loss, postoperative pain, and length of hospital stay. In addition, several methods of non-pedicular fixation such as translaminar and fusion mass screws have trajectories that are directed away from or posterior to the spinal canal, potentially decreasing the risk of neurologic injury. CBT, transfacet, and fusion mass screws can also be used as salvage techniques when traditional pedicle screw constructs fail.

CONCLUSIONS

CBT and non-pedicular fixation may be preferred in certain lumbar degenerative cases, particularly among patients with osteoporosis. Limitations of non-pedicular techniques include their reliance on intact posterior elements and the lack of 3-column fixation of the spine. As a result, transfacet and translaminar screws are infrequently used as the primary method of fixation. CBT, transfacet, and translaminar screws are effective in augmenting interbody fixation and have been shown to significantly improve fusion rates and clinical outcomes compared with stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Mini-invasive bilateral transfacet screw fixation with reconstruction of the neural arch for lumbar stenosis: A two centre case series

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Lumbar stenosis and instability frequently coexist. Spinal canal decompression is often combined with fixation of the relevant vertebral segment and can be performed using different techniques and devices, including pedicle screws and interspinous devices and facet screws. The present study evaluates the clinical outcome of laminectomy and single-level fusion using a minimally invasive technique for rigid posterior spinal column fixation with two cross-linked lag screws.

METHODS

The records of patients operated from 2012 to 2016 were retrieved from the computerised medical record database system. Data on age, sex, surgical level, type of deficit and disease were collected. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaires were administered pre-operatively and at 1, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery.

MAIN FINDINGS

A total of 46 consecutive patients were operated between January 2012 to October 2016. One intraoperative complication was reported, and 4 patients experienced radiographic pseudarthrosis postoperatively. Five patients underwent additional surgery. The lumbar and lower limb VAS score, ODI and SF-36 scores showed statistically significant improvement for each score at the first and last follow-up (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous lumbar transfacet screw placement with the Facet-Link ® system is feasible and safe but with a relatively high rate of poor articular fusion. This technique can reduce the morbidity of single-level lumbar spinal stenosis and mild instability and improve patient outcome scores. Comparative studies, including randomised controlled trials, are needed to confirm these findings.

An In Vitro Biomechanical Evaluation of a Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Device With Integrated Lateral Modular Plate Fixation

STUDY DESIGN

In vitro cadaveric biomechanical study.

OBJECTIVE

Biomechanically characterize a novel lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) implant possessing integrated lateral modular plate fixation (MPF).

METHODS

A human lumbar cadaveric (n = 7, L1-L4) biomechanical study of segmental range-of-motion stiffness was performed. A ±7.5 Nċm moment was applied in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation using a 6 degree-of-freedom kinematics system. Specimens were tested first in an intact state and then following iterative instrumentation (L2/3): (1) LLIF cage only, (2) LLIF + 2-screw MPF, (3) LLIF + 4-screw MPF, (4) LLIF + 4-screw MPF + interspinous process fixation, and (5) LLIF + bilateral pedicle screw fixation. Comparative analysis of range-of-motion outcomes was performed between iterations.

RESULTS

Key biomechanical findings: (1) Flexion/extension range-of-motion reduction with LLIF + 4-screw MPF was significantly greater than LLIF + 2-screw MPF (P < .01). (2) LLIF with 2-screw and 4-screw MPF were comparable to LLIF with bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lateral bending and axial rotation range-of-motion reduction (P = 1.0). (3) LLIF + 4-screw MPF and supplemental interspinous process fixation range-of-motion reduction was comparable to LLIF + bilateral pedicle screw fixation in all directions (P ≥ .6).

CONCLUSIONS

LLIF with 4-screw MPF may provide inherent advantages over traditional 2-screw plating modalities. Furthermore, when coupled with interspinous process fixation, LLIF with MPF is a stable circumferential construct that provides biomechanical utility in all principal motions.

Cadaveric biomechanical analysis of multilevel lateral lumbar interbody fusion with and without supplemental instrumentation

BACKGROUND

This study was to evaluate and compare the biomechanical features of multilevel lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with or without supplemental instrumentations.

METHODS

Six human lumbar specimens were tested under multidirectional nondestructive moments (7.5 N·m), with a 6 degree-of-freedom spine simulator. The overall and intervertebral range of motion (ROM) were measured optoelectronically. Each specimen was tested under the following conditions at L2-5 levels: intact; stand-alone; cage supplemented with lateral plate (LP); cage supplemented with unilateral or bilateral pedicle screw/rod (UPS or BPS).

RESULTS

Compared with intact condition, the overall and intersegmental ROM were significantly reduced after multilevel stand-alone LLIF. The ROM was further reduced after using LP instrumentation. In flexion-extension (FE) and axial rotation (AR), pedicle screw/rod demonstrated greater overall ROM reduction compared to LP (P < 0.01), and bilateral greater than unilateral (P < 0.01). In lateral bending (LB), BPS demonstrated greater overall ROM reduction compared to UPS and LP (P < 0.01), however, UPS and LP showed similar reduction (P = 0.245). Intervertebral ROM reductions showed similar trend as the overall ones after using different types of instrumentation. However, at L2/3 (P = 0.57) and L3/4 (P = 0.097) levels, the intervertebral ROM reductions in AR were similar between UPS and LP.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall and intervertebral stability increased significantly after multilevel LLIF with or without supplemental instrumentation. BPS provided the greatest stability, followed by UPS and LP. However, in clinical practice, less invasive adjunctive fixation methods including UPS and LP may provide sufficient biomechanical stability for multilevel LLIF.

Biomechanical Analysis of an Interspinous Process Fixation Device with In Situ Shortening Capabilities: Does Spinous Process Compression Improve Segmental Stability?

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to characterize the biomechanical implications of spinous process compression, via in situ shortening of a next-generation interspinous process fixation (ISPF) device, in the context of segmental fusion.

METHODS

Seven lumbar cadaveric spines (L1-L4) were tested. Specimens were first tested in an intact state, followed by iterative instrumentation at L2-3 and subsequent testing. The order followed was 1) stand-alone ISPF (neutral height); 2) stand-alone ISPF (shortened in situ from neutral height; shortened); 3) lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) + ISPF (neutral); 4) LLIF + ISPF (shortened); 5) LLIF + unilateral pedicle screw fixation; 6) LLIF + bilateral pedicle screw fixation. A 7.5-Nm moment was applied in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation via a kinematic test frame. Segmental range of motion (ROM) and lordosis were measured for all constructs. Comparative analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Statistically significant flexion/extension ROM reductions: all constructs versus intact condition (P < 0.01); LLIF + ISPF (neutral and shortened) versus stand-alone ISPF (neutral and shortened) (P < 0.01); LLIF + USPF versus ISPF (neutral) (P = 0.049); bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) versus stand-alone ISPF (neutral and shortened) (P < 0.01); LLIF + BPSF versus LLIF + unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) (P < 0.01). Significant lateral bending ROM reductions: LLIF + ISPF (neutral and shortened) versus intact condition and stand-alone ISPF (neutral) (P < 0.01); LLIF + UPSF versus intact condition and stand-alone ISPF (neutral and shortened) (P < 0.01); LLIF + BPSF versus intact condition and all constructs (P < 0.01). Significant axial rotation ROM reductions: LLIF + ISPF (shortened) and LLIF + UPSF versus intact condition and stand-alone ISPF (neutral) (P ≤ 0.01); LLIF + BPSF versus intact condition and all constructs (P ≤ 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

In situ shortening of an adjustable ISPF device may support increased segmental stabilization compared with static ISPF.

Value of single-level circumferential fusion: a 10-year prospective outcomes and cost-effectiveness analysis comparing posterior facet versus pedicle screw fixation

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical and economic outcomes of facet versus pedicle screw instrumentation for single-level circumferential lumbar spinal fusion.

METHODS

Outcomes included self-assessment of back and leg pain, pain drawing, ODI, pain medication usage, and procedure success. The CEA was based on the 10-year data collected, and the base-case was from a US payer perspective. Costs included the index surgery, additional surgeries, outpatient/ED visits, and medications. To determine quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), ODI scores were used to predict SF-6D utilities. Sensitivity analyses were performed from a modified payer perspective including device costs and from a societal perspective including productivity loss. Discounted and undiscounted incremental costs and QALYs were calculated. Bootstrapping was performed to estimate the distribution of incremental costs and effects.

RESULTS

Clinical improvement was significant from pre-op to 10-year follow-up for both groups (p < 0.01 for all outcomes scales). Outcomes were significantly better for back pain and ODI for the facet versus pedicle group at all follow-up periods > 1 year (p < 0.05). In the CEA base-case, facets had more QALYs (0.68) and lower costs (- $8650) per person compared with pedicle screws. Therefore, facets were dominant (i.e., provided cost savings and greater QALYs) compared with pedicle screws. Facets had a 97% probability of being below a willingness-to-pay threshold of $20,000 per QALY gained and were estimated to be dominant over pedicle screws in 84% of the simulations.

CONCLUSION

One-level circumferential spinal fusion using facet screws was clinically superior and provided cost savings compared with pedicle screw instrumentation in the USA.

Is there any advantage of using stand-alone cages? A numerical approach

Background

Segment fusion using interbody cages supplemented with pedicle screw fixation is the most common surgery for the treatment of low back pain. However, there is still much controversy regarding the use of cages in a stand-alone fashion. The goal of this work is to numerically compare the influence that each surgery has on lumbar biomechanics.

Methods

A non-linear FE model of the whole lumbar spine was developed to compare between two types of cages (OLYS and NEOLIF) with and without supplementary fixation. The motion of the whole spine was analysed and the biomechanical environment of the adjacent segments to the operated one was studied. Moreover, the risk of subsidence of the cages was qualitatively evaluated.

Results

A great ROM reduction occurred when supplementary fixation was used. This stiffening increased the stresses at the adjacent levels. It might be hypothesised that the overloading of these segments could be related with the clinically observed adjacent disc degeneration. Meanwhile, the stand-alone cages allowed for a wider movement, and therefore, the influence of the surgery on adjacent discs was much lower. Regarding the risk of subsidence, the contact pressure magnitude was similar for both intervertebral cage designs and near the value of the maximum tolerable pressure of the endplates.

Conclusions

A minimally invasive posterior insertion of an intervertebral cage (OLYS or NEOLIF) was compared using a stand-alone design or adding supplementary fixation. The outcomes of these two techniques were compared, and although stand-alone cage may diminish the risk of disease progression to the adjacent discs, the spinal movement in this case could compromise the vertebral fusion and might present a higher risk of cage subsidence.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12938-019-0684-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Biomechanical Analysis of Cortical Versus Pedicle Screw Fixation Stability in TLIF, PLIF, and XLIF Applications

STUDY DESIGN

Cadaveric biomechanical study.

OBJECTIVES

Medial-to-lateral trajectory cortical screws are of clinical interest due to the ability to place them through a less disruptive, medialized exposure compared with conventional pedicle screws. In this study, cortical and pedicle screw trajectory stability was investigated in single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) constructs.

METHODS

Eight lumbar spinal units were used for each interbody/screw trajectory combination. The following constructs were tested: TLIF + unilateral facetectomy (UF) + bilateral pedicle screws (BPS), TLIF + UF + bilateral cortical screws (BCS), PLIF + medial facetectomy (MF) + BPS, PLIF + bilateral facetectomy (BF) + BPS, PLIF + MF + BCS, PLIF + BF + BCS, XLIF + BPS, XLIF + BCS, and XLIF + bilateral laminotomy + BCS. Range of motion (ROM) in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation was assessed using pure moments.

RESULTS

All instrumented constructs were significantly more rigid than intact (P < .05) in all test directions except TLIF + UF + BCS, PLIF + MF + BCS, and PLIF + BF + BCS in axial rotation. In general, XLIF and PLIF + MF constructs were more rigid (lowest ROM) than TLIF + UF and PLIF + BF constructs. In the presence of substantial iatrogenic destabilization (TLIF + UF and PLIF + BF), cortical screw constructs tended to be less rigid (higher ROM) than the same pedicle screw constructs in lateral bending and axial rotation; however, no statistically significant differences were found when comparing pedicle and cortical fixation for the same interbody procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Both cortical and pedicle trajectory screw fixation provided stability to the 1-level interbody constructs. Constructs with the least iatrogenic destabilization were most rigid. The more destabilized constructs showed less lateral bending and axial rotation rigidity with cortical screws compared with pedicle screws. Further investigation is warranted to understand the clinical implications of differences between constructs.

Anterior and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Supplemental Interspinous Process Fixation: Outcomes from a Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study

Background

Rigid interspinous process fixation (ISPF) has received consideration as an efficient, minimally disruptive technique in supporting lumbar interbody fusion. However, despite advantageous intraoperative utility, limited evidence exists characterizing midterm to long-term clinical outcomes with ISPF. The objective of this multicenter study was to prospectively assess patients receiving single-level anterior (ALIF) or lateral (LLIF) lumbar interbody fusion with adjunctive ISPF.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, multicenter (11 investigators), noninferiority trial. All patients received single-level ALIF or LLIF with supplemental ISPF (n = 66) or pedicle screw fixation (PSF; n = 37) for degenerative disc disease and/or spondylolisthesis (grade ≤2). The randomization patient ratio was 2:1, ISPF/PSF. Perioperative and follow-up outcomes were collected (6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months).

Results

For ISPF patients, mean posterior intraoperative outcomes were: blood loss, 70.9 mL; operating time, 52.2 minutes; incision length, 5.5 cm; and fluoroscopic imaging time, 10.4 seconds. Statistically significant improvement in patient Oswestry Disability Index scores were achieved by just 6 weeks after operation (P < .01) and improved out to 12 months for the ISPF cohort. Patient-reported 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire scores were also significantly improved from baseline to 12 months in the ISPF cohort (P < .01). A total of 92.7% of ISPF patients exhibited interspinous fusion at 12 months. One ISPF patient (1.5%) required a secondary surgical intervention of possible relation to the posterior instrumentation/procedure.

Conclusion

ISPF can be achieved quickly, with minimal tissue disruption and complication. In supplementing ALIF and LLIF, ISPF supported significant improvement in early postoperative (≤12 months) patient-reported outcomes, while facilitating robust posterior fusion.

Percutaneous Lumbar Transfacet Screw Fixation: A Technique Analysis of 176 Screws in 83 Patients With Assessment of Radiographic Accuracy, Hardware Failure, and Complications

Supplemental Digital Content Is Available in the Text.

Biomechanics of posterior instrumentation in L1-L3 lateral interbody fusion: Pedicle screw rod construct vs. transfacet pedicle screws

BACKGROUND

The use of pedicle screws is the gold standard for supplemental posterior fixation in lateral interbody fusion. Information about the performance of transfacet pedicle screws compared to standard pedicle screws and rods in the upper lumbar spine with or without a lateral interbody fusion device in place is limited.

METHODS

Fifteen fresh frozen human cadaveric lumbar spine segments (T12-L4) were studied using standard pure moment flexibility tests. Specimens were divided into two groups to receive either bilateral transfacet pedicle screws (n=8) or bilateral pedicle screws (n=14). Stability of each motion segment (L1-L2 and L2-L3) was evaluated intact, with posterior instrumentation with an intact disc, with posterior instrumentation and a lateral interbody fusion device in place, and following cyclic loading with the interbody device and posterior instrumentation still in place. Both raw values of motion (range of motion, lax zone and stiff zone) and normalized mobility (ratios to intact) were analyzed for each case.

FINDINGS

In terms of immediate stability, transfacet pedicle screws performed equivalent to similarly sized pedicle screws, both with intact disc and with lateral interbody fusion device in all directions of loading. Stability following cyclic loading decreased significantly during lateral bending and axial rotation.

INTERPRETATION

Posterior fixation with transfacet pedicle screws provides equivalent immediate stability to similarly sized pedicle screws. However, in the presence of a lateral interbody fusion device, pedicle screws seem to resist loosening more and may be a better option for fusion in the upper lumbar spine.

Prospective evaluation of 1-year outcomes in single-level percutaneous lumbar transfacet screw fixation in the lateral decubitus position following lateral transpsoas interbody fusion

PURPOSE

Lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion (LTIF) is an accepted treatment for degenerative lumbar disc disease. Bilateral percutaneous transfacet (TF) fixation is a promising option for stabilization following LTIF. Here, we describe our experience with this technique and assess the clinical outcomes and efficacy.

METHODS

Thirty-eight consecutive patients were identified who underwent LTIF followed by bilateral percutaneous transfacet fixation in the lateral position. Preoperative and 1-year postoperative VAS scores, and operative data were prospectively recorded. One-year outcomes were also assessed according to the MacNab criteria. Fusion was assessed at 1 year via computed tomography and dynamic radiography. Two-tailed Student's t test was used to compare VAS scores.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients underwent fusion at L4-5, 11 at L3-4, and one at L2-3; two patients were lost to follow-up. Mean operative time was 148.0 ± 47.9 min; mean blood loss was 33.0 ± 26.1 ml; mean hospital stay was 53.5 ± 51.2 h. Mean preoperative VAS scores for back and leg pain were 7.4 ± 3.0 and 7.0 ± 2.9, respectively; mean postoperative VAS scores for back and leg pain were 1.9 ± 2.4 (p < 0.0001) and 2.0 ± 3.0 (p < 0.0001), respectively. Most (89 %) patients had some relief, 72 % good to excellent and 17 % fair outcomes; eleven percent had little to no relief. There was one postoperative complication (pulmonary embolus). All patients had evidence of solid bony fusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous transfacet fixation in the lateral position is a safe and effective alternative for fixation after LTIF and may be associated with shorter operative time and less blood loss than other posterior fixation techniques.

The current testing protocols for biomechanical evaluation of lumbar spinal implants in laboratory setting: a review of the literature

In vitro biomechanical investigations have become a routinely employed technique to explore new lumbar instrumentation. One of the most important advantages of such investigations is the low risk present when compared to clinical trials. However, the best use of any experimental data can be made when standard testing protocols are adopted by investigators, thus allowing comparisons among studies. Experimental variables, such as the length of the specimen, operative level, type of loading (e.g., dynamic versus quasistatic), magnitude, and rate of load applied, are among the most common variables controlled during spinal biomechanical testing. Although important efforts have been made to standardize these protocols, high variability can be found in the current literature. The aim of this investigation was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to identify the current trends in the protocols reported for the evaluation of new lumbar spinal implants under laboratory setting.

Non-union rate with stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion

Retrospective radiographic analysis.To determine the fusion rate of stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). Biomechanical studies have indicated that LLIF may be more stable than anterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Early clinical reports of stand-alone LLIF have shown success in obtaining fusion and indirectly decompressing nerve roots. A consecutive case series of stand-alone LLIF was analyzed with chart and radiographic review. Non-union was determined by symptomatology consistent with non-union and absence of bridging bone on the CT scan. Thirty-nine levels of stand alone LLIF were performed in 23 patients. Eleven patients received 1-level surgery, 7 patients received 2-level surgery, 3 patients received 3-level surgery, and 1 patient received 4-level surgery. Excluding 1 infected case, we analyzed 37 levels of stand alone LLIF in 22 patients. Non-union incidence was 7 levels in 6 patients. Non-union rate was 7/37 (19%) per level and 6/22 (27%) per patient. While our study population was relatively low, a non-union rate of 19% to 27% is concerning for modern spine surgery. Currently in our practice, we occasionally still perform stand-alone LLIF utilizing 22 mm wide grafts in low-demand levels in non-smoking and non-osteoporotic patients. However, in a majority of patients, we provide supplemental fixation: bilateral pedicle screws in most patients and unilateral pedicle screws or spinous process plates in some patients.

CT-Guided Transfacet Pedicle Screw Fixation in Facet Joint Syndrome: A Novel Approach

Axial microinstability secondary to disc degeneration and consequent chronic facet joint syndrome (CFJS) is a well-known pathological entity, usually responsible for low back pain (LBP). Although posterior lumbar fixation (PIF) has been widely used for lumbar spine instability and LBP, complications related to wrong screw introduction, perineural scars and extensive muscle dissection leading to muscle dysfunction have been described. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of facet joints zygapophyseal nerves conventionally used for pain treatment fails in approximately 21% of patients. We investigated a "covert-surgery" minimal invasive technique to treat local spinal instability and LBP, using a novel fully CT-guided approach in patients with axial instability complicated by CFJS resistant to radioablation, by introducing direct fully or partially threaded transfacet screws (transfacet fixation - TFF), to acquire solid arthrodesis, reducing instability and LBP. The CT-guided procedure was well tolerated by all patients in simple analogue sedation, and mean operative time was approximately 45 minutes. All eight patients treated underwent clinical and CT study follow-up at two months, revealing LBP disappearance in six patients, and a significant reduction of lumbar pain in two. In conclusion, CT-guided TFF is a fast and safe technique when facet posterior fixation is needed.

Biomechanical and anatomical considerations in lumbar spinous process fixation--an in vitro human cadaveric model

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Although multiple mechanisms of device attachment to the spinous processes exist, there is a paucity of data regarding lumbar spinous process morphology and peak failure loads.

PURPOSE

Using an in vitro human cadaveric spine model, the primary objective of the present study was to compare the peak load and mechanisms of lumbar spinous process failure with variation in spinous process hole location and pullout direction. A secondary objective was to provide an in-depth characterization of spinous process morphology.

STUDY DESIGN

Biomechanical and anatomical considerations in lumbar spinous process fixation using an in vitro human cadaveric model.

METHODS

A total of 12 intact lumbar spines were used in the current investigation. The vertebral segments (L1-L5) were randomly assigned to one of five treatment groups with variation in spinous process hole placement and pullout direction: (1) central hole placement with superior pullout (n=10), (2) central hole placement with inferior pullout (n=10), (3) inferior hole placement with inferior pullout (n=10), (4) superior hole placement with superior pullout (n=10), and (5) intact spinous process with superior pullout (n=14). A 4-mm diameter pin was placed through the hole followed by pullout testing using a material testing system. As well, the bone mineral density (BMD) (g/cm(3)) was measured for each segment. Data were quantified in terms of anatomical dimensions (mm), peak failure loads (newtons [N]), and fracture mechanisms, with linear regression analysis to identify relationships between anatomical and biomechanical data.

RESULTS

Based on anatomical comparisons, there were significant differences between the anteroposterior and cephalocaudal dimensions of the L5 spinous process versus L1-L4 (p<.05). Statistical analysis of peak load at failure of the four reconstruction treatments and intact condition demonstrated no significant differences between treatments (range, 350-500 N) (p>.05). However, a significant linear correlation was observed between peak failure load and anteroposterior and cephalocaudal dimensions (p<.05). Correlation between BMD and peak spinous processes failure load was approaching statistical significance (p=.08). 30 of 54 specimens failed via direct pullout (plow through), whereas 8 of 54 specimens demonstrated spinous process fracture. The remaining cases failed via plow through followed by fracture of the spinous process (16 of 54; 29%).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated that variation in spinous process hole placement did not significantly influence failure load. However, there was a strong linear correlation between peak failure load and the anteroposterior and cephalocaudal anatomical dimensions. From a clinical standpoint, the findings of the present study indicate that attachment through the spinous process provides a viable alternative to attachment around the spinous processes. In addition, the anatomical dimensions of the lumbar spinous processes have a greater influence on biomechanical fixation than either hole location or BMD.