Fixation Strength of Modified Iliac Screw Trajectory Compared to Traditional Iliac and S2 Alar-Iliac Trajectories: A Cadaveric Study.

OBJECTIVE: Traditional iliac (TI) screws require extensive dissection, involve offset-connectors, and have prominent screw heads that may cause patient discomfort. S2 alar-iliac (S2AI) screws require less dissection, do not need offset connectors, and are less prominent. However, the biomechanical consequences of S2AI screws crossing the alar-iliac joint is unknown. The present study investigates the fixation strength of a modified iliac (MI) screw, which has a more medial entry point and reduced screw prominence, but does not cross the alar-iliac joint. METHODS: Eighteen sacropelvic spines were divided into 3 groups (n = 6): TI, S2AI, and MI. Each specimen was fixed unilaterally with S1 pedicle screws and pelvic fixation according to its group. Screws were loaded at ±10 Nm at 3Hz for 1000 cycles. Motion of each screw and rod strain above and below the S1 screw was measured. RESULTS: Toggle of the S1 screw was lowest for the TI group, followed by the MI and S2AI groups, but there were no significant differences (P = 0.421). Toggle of the iliac screw relative to the pelvis was also lowest for the TI group, followed by the MI group, and was greatest for the S2AI group, without significant differences (P = 0.179). Rod strain was similar across all groups. CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences were found between the TI, S2AI, and MI techniques with regard to screw toggle or rod strain. Advantages of the MI screw include its lower profile and a medialized starting point eliminating the need for offset-connectors.

Comparison of 3D-printed titanium-alloy, standard titanium-alloy, and PEEK interbody spacers in an ovine model.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Osseointegration is a pivotal process in achieving a rigid fusion and ultimately a successful clinical outcome following interbody fusion surgery. Advancements in 3D printing technology permit commonly used titanium interbody spacers to be designed with unique architectures, such as a highly interconnected and specific porous structure that mimics the architecture of trabecular bone. Interbody implants with a microscale surface roughness and biomimetic porosity may improve bony ongrowth and ingrowth compared to traditional materials. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the osseointegration of lumbar interbody fusion devices composed of surgical-grade polyetheretherketone (PEEK), titanium-alloy (TAV), and 3D-printed porous, biomimetic TAV (3DP) using an in vivo ovine model. STUDY DESIGN: In Vivo Preclinical Animal Study METHODS: Eighteen sheep underwent two-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion randomized with either 3DP, PEEK, or TAV interbody spacers (n=6 levels for each spacer per time point). Postoperative time points were 6 and 12 weeks. Microcomputed tomography and histomorphometry were used to quantify bone volume (BV) within the spacers (ingrowth) and the surface bone apposition ratio (BAR) (ongrowth), respectively. RESULTS: The 3DP-treatment group demonstrated significantly higher BV than the PEEK and TAV groups at 6 weeks (77.3±44.1 mm3, 116.9±43.0 mm3, and 108.7±15.2 mm3, respectively) (p<.05). At 12 weeks, there were no BV differences between groups (p>.05). BV increased in all groups from the 6- to 12-week time points (p<.05). At both time points, the 3DP-treated group (6w: 23.6±10.9%; 12w: 36.5±10.9%) had significantly greater BAR than the PEEK (6w: 8.6±2.1%; 12w: 14.0±5.0%) and TAV (6w: 6.0±5.7%; 12w: 4.1±3.3%) groups (p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: 3DP interbody spacers facilitated greater total bony ingrowth at 6 weeks, and greater bony ongrowth postoperatively at both 6 and 12 weeks, in comparison to solid PEEK and TAV implants. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Based on these findings, the 3DP spacers may be a reasonable alternative to traditional PEEK and TAV spacers in various clinical applications of interbody fusion.