Pedicle Screw System May Not Control Severe Spinal Rotational Instability

STUDY DESIGN

An in vitro biomechanical study.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to discuss whether pedicle screw systems can control spinal rotational instability in a functional spinal unit of lumbar spine on human cadaver.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Rotational experiments using deer lumbar cadaveric models showed that rotational range of motion (ROM) of the model fixed by a pedicle screw system with crosslinking after total facetectomy for both the sides was larger than that in the intact model, and stated that spinal rotational instability could not be controlled using a pedicle screw system.

METHODS

A rotation experiment using 10 functional spinal units (L3-4) of lumbar spine on human cadavers was performed by preparing the four models (intact model, damaged model, pedicle screw model, and crosslink (CL) model) in stages, then calculating and comparing rotational ROM among the four models.

RESULTS

Rotational ROM in the CL model was still larger than that of the intact model in all the samples. And, rotational ROM decreased in the order of damaged model >> pedicle screw model > CL model > intact model. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between all models (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Pedicle screw systems may not control severe spinal rotational instability in human lumbar cadaveric models with total facetectomy on both the sides. This may represent a major biomechanical drawback to the pedicle screw system.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.

Trajectory of instantaneous axis of rotation in fixed lumbar spine with instrumentation

Background

Several studies showed instantaneous axis of rotation (IAR) in the intact spine. However, there has been no report on the trajectory of the IAR of a damaged spine or that of a fixed spine with instrumentation. It is the aim of this study to investigate the trajectory of the IAR of the lumbar spine using the vertebra of deer.

Methods

Functional spinal units (L5–6) from five deer were evaluated with six-axis material testing machine. As specimen models, we prepared a normal model, a damaged model, and a pedicle screw (PS) model. We measured the IAR during bending in the coronal and sagittal planes and axial rotation. In the bending test, four directions were measured: anterior, posterior, right, and left. In the rotation test, two directions were measured: right and left.

Results

The IAR of the normal model during bending moved in the bending direction. The IAR of the damaged model during bending moved in the bending direction, but the magnitude of displacement was bigger compared to that of the normal model. In the PS model, the IAR during bending test hardly moved. During rotation test, the IAR of the normal model and PS model located in the spinal canal, but the IAR of the damaged model located in the posterior part of the vertebral body.

Conclusions

In this study, the IAR of damaged model was scattering and that of PS model was concentrating. This suggests that higher mechanical load applied to the dura tube and nerve roots in the damaged model and less mechanical load applied to that in the PS model.

Do the Position and Orientation of the Crosslink Influence the Stiffness of Spinal Instrumentation?

STUDY DESIGN

Biomechanical study of double-level pedicle screw constructs with or without crosslinks (CL) in an unstable model.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to investigate the optimal position and orientation of the CL.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Several reports have described biomechanical research on such CL, but no definite consensus has been reached regarding the effects. Very few studies have examined the position and orientation of the CL. The question of where and how the CL should be clinically set remains unanswered.

METHODS

Ten cadaveric lumbar spines (L3-L5) of boars were used and 7 models were prepared by the sequential damage and spinal instrumentation of each specimen. Bending stiffness was measured in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation for each model using 6-axis material tester under torque of 0 to ±3 N m. Results for each configuration were compared using analysis of variance and the Turkey-Kramer test.

RESULTS

In flexion, extension, and lateral bending, 7 models showed similar stiffness with no significant differences. In axial rotation, stiffness increased significantly (P<0.05) in the cephalic, central, caudal, and oblique CL models in comparison with that of the no CL model, and stiffness of the horizontal 2 CL and oblique 2 CL models was significantly higher than that of cephalic, central, caudal, and oblique CL models (P<0.05). However, no significant differences in stiffness were seen between cephalic, central, and caudal CL models, between the central and oblique CL models, or between the horizontal and oblique 2 CL models.

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant use of CLs significantly increased axial rotational stiffness, even though stiffness in flexion, extension, and lateral bending was not increased. In addition, stiffness in axial rotation significantly improved with the use of 2 CLs instead of a single CL, and stiffness was unchanged by position and orientation of CL.

Biomechanical study of rotational micromovement of the pedicle screw

Background

In regard to the fixation using a pedicle screw (PS) and rod system, the mechanism from the onset of the clear zone up to the development of loosening of the pedicle screw is not completely clarified. The purpose of this study is to determine the cause of the pedicle screw loosening by performing a biomechanical study with three-dimensional movie analysis.

Methods

Ten PS fixation model of the lumbar spines (L3–4) of boar cadavers were used. The rotational angles of the L3 and L4 vertebral body and the screw at the time of applying a ±5 Nm load in the left anterior and right posterior flexion directions respectively were calculated based on those at the time of applying no load. The absolute value of the difference in the rotational angles between each vertebral body with left anterior flexion and right posterior flexion and the inserted screws was defined as rotational micromovement.

Results

In both the left anterior and right posterior flexion directions, there were significant differences (p < 0.05) in the rotational angles between the screw and the vertebral body for both the L3 and L4 vertebral bodies.

Conclusion

Our biomechanical results showed that rotational micromovement occurred between the PS and the vertebral body, and repeated rotational micromovement might cause loosening of the screw or pullout of PS fixation.

A biomechanical comparison between cortical bone trajectory fixation and pedicle screw fixation

PURPOSE

There have been several reports on the pullout strength of cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws, but only one study has reviewed the stability of functional spine units using the CBT method. The purpose of this study was to compare vertebral stability after CBT fixation with that after pedicle screw (PS) fixation.

METHODS

In this study, 20 lumbar spine (L5-6) specimens were assigned to two groups: the CBT model group that underwent CBT screw fixation (n = 10) and the PS model group that underwent pedicle screw fixation (n = 10). Using a six-axis material testing machine, bend and rotation tests were conducted on each model. The angular displacement from the time of no load to the time of maximum torque was defined as range of motion (ROM), and then, the mean ROM in the bend and rotation tests and the mean rate of relative change of ROM in both the bend and rotation tests were compared between the CBT and PS groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the CBT and PS groups with regard to the mean ROMs and the mean rate of relative change of ROMs in both the bend and rotation tests.

CONCLUSION

Intervertebral stability after CBT fixation was similar to that after PS fixation.

Biomechanical study of the lumbar spine using a unilateral pedicle screw fixation system

Lumbar fusion combined with unilateral pedicle screw fixation has received favourable clinical reports. However, there are very few reports about the biomechanical properties of this system. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanics of a unilateral pedicle screw system with a bilateral system. Two fresh lumbar vertebral columns from human cadavers were used. Seven models were prepared by the sequential damage and spinal instrumentation of each specimen. Bending and rotation tests were performed to clarify the range of motion for each model using a 6-axis material tester that we have developed. We showed that the unilateral pedicle screw system offers only uneven fixation. This results in dispersion of rigidity depending on the direction of bending and rotation. The bilateral pedicle screw system, however, allows excellent fixation in all directions.