The contribution of the acetabular labrum to hip joint stability: a quantitative analysis using a dynamic three-dimensional robot model.

The acetabular labrum provides mechanical stability to the hip joint in extreme positions where the femoral head is disposed to subluxation. We aimed to quantify the isolated labrum's stabilizing value. Five human cadaveric hips were mounted to a robotic manipulator, and subluxation potential tests were run with and without labrum. Three-dimensional (3D) kinematic data were quantified using the stability index (Colbrunn et al., 2013, "Impingement and Stability of Total Hip Arthroplasty Versus Femoral Head Resurfacing Using a Cadaveric Robotics Model," J. Orthop. Res., 31(7), pp. 1108-1115). Global and regional stability indices were significantly greater with labrum intact than after total labrectomy for both anterior and posterior provocative positions. In extreme positions, the labrum imparts significant overall mechanical resistance to hip subluxation. Regional stability contributions vary with joint orientation.

Biomechanical evaluation of a simulated T-9 burst fracture of the thoracic spine with an intact rib cage.

OBJECT: Classic biomechanical models have used thoracic spines disarticulated from the rib cage, but the biomechanical influence of the rib cage on fracture biomechanics has not been investigated. The well-accepted construct for stabilizing midthoracic fractures is posterior instrumentation 3 levels above and 2 levels below the injury. Short-segment fixation failure in thoracolumbar burst fractures has led to kyphosis and implant failure when anterior column support is lacking. Whether shorter constructs are viable in the midthoracic spine is a point of controversy. The objective of this study was the biomechanical evaluation of a burst fracture at T-9 with an intact rib cage using different fixation constructs for stabilizing the spine. METHODS: A total of 8 human cadaveric spines (C7-L1) with intact rib cages were used in this study. The range of motion (ROM) between T-8 and T-10 was the outcome measure. A robotic spine testing system was programmed to apply pure moment loads (± 5 Nm) in lateral bending, flexion-extension, and axial rotation to whole thoracic specimens. Intersegmental rotations were measured using an optoelectronic system. Flexibility tests were conducted on intact specimens, then sequentially after surgically induced fracture at T-9, and after each of 4 fixation construct patterns. The 4 construct patterns were sequentially tested in a nondestructive protocol, as follows: 1) 3 above/2 below (3A/2B); 2) 1 above/1 below (1A/1B); 3) 1 above/1 below with vertebral body augmentation (1A/1B w/VA); and 4) vertebral body augmentation with no posterior instrumentation (VA). A repeated-measures ANOVA was used to compare the segmental motion between T-8 and T-10 vertebrae. RESULTS: Mean ROM increased by 86%, 151%, and 31% after fracture in lateral bending, flexion-extension, and axial rotation, respectively. In lateral bending, there was significant reduction compared with intact controls for all 3 instrumented constructs: 3A/2B (-92%, p = 0.0004), 1A/1B (-63%, p = 0.0132), and 1A/1B w/VA (-66%, p = 0.0150). In flexion-extension, only the 3A/2B pattern showed a significant reduction (-90%, p = 0.011). In axial rotation, motion was significantly reduced for the 3 instrumented constructs: 3A/2B (-66%, p = 0.0001), 1A/1B (-53%, p = 0.0001), and 1A/1B w/VA (-51%, p = 0.0002). Between the 4 construct patterns, the 3 instrumented constructs (3A/2B, 1A/1B, and 1A/1B w/VA) showed comparable stability in all 3 motion planes. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed no significant difference in the stability of the 3 instrumented constructs tested when the rib cage is intact. Fractures that might appear more grossly unstable when tested in the disarticulated spine may be bolstered by the ribs. This may affect the extent of segmental spinal instrumentation needed to restore stability in some spine injuries. While these initial findings suggest that shorter constructs may adequately stabilize the spine in this fracture model, further study is needed before these results can be extrapolated to clinical application.

Properties of an interspinous fixation device (ISD) in lumbar fusion constructs: a biomechanical study.

BACKGROUND: Segmental fixation improves fusion rates and promotes patient mobility by controlling instability after lumbar surgery. Efforts to obtain stability using less invasive techniques have lead to the advent of new implants and constructs. A new interspinous fixation device (ISD) has been introduced as a minimally invasive method of stabilizing two adjacent interspinous processes by augmenting an interbody cage in transforaminal interbody fusion. The ISD is intended to replace the standard pedicle screw instrumentation used for posterior fixation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the rigidity of these implant systems when supplementing an interbody cage as used in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. STUDY DESIGN: An in vitro human cadaveric biomechanical study. METHODS: Seven human cadaver spines (T12 to the sacrum) were mounted in a custom-designed testing apparatus, for biomechanical testing using a multiaxial robotic system. A comparison of segmental stiffness was carried out among five conditions: intact spine control; interbody spacer (IBS), alone; interbody cage with ISD; IBS, ISD, and unilateral pedicle screws (unilat); and IBS, with bilateral pedicle screws (bilat). An industrial robot (KUKA, GmbH, Augsburg, Germany) applied a pure moment (±5 Nm) in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) through an anchor to the T12 vertebral body. The relative vertebral motion was captured using an optoelectronic camera system (Optotrak; Northern Digital, Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, Canada). The load sensor and the camera were synchronized. Maximum rotation was measured at each level and compared with the intact control. Implant constructs were compared with the control and with each other. A statistical analysis was performed using analysis of variance. RESULTS: A comparison between the intact spine and the IBS group showed no significant difference in the range of motion (ROM) in FE, LB, or AR for the operated level, L3-L4. After implantation of the ISD to augment the IBS, there was a significant decrease in the ROM of 74% in FE (p<.001) but no significant change in the ROM in LB and AR. The unilat construct significantly reduced the ROM by 77% compared with FE control (p<.001) and by 55% (p=.002) and 42% (p=.04) in LB and AR, respectively, compared with control. The bilat construct reduced the ROM in FE by 77% (p<.001), LB by 77% (p=.001), and AR by 65% (p=.001) when compared with the control spine. There was no statistically significant difference in the ROM in FE among the stand-alone ISD, unilat, and bilat constructs. However, in both LB and AR, the unilat and the bilat constructs were significantly stiffer (reduction in the ROM) than the ISD and the IBS combination. The ISD stability in LB and AR was not different from the intact control with no instrumentation at all. There was no statistical difference between the stability of the unilat and the bilat constructs in any direction. However, LB and AR in the unilat group produced a mean rotation of 3.83°±3.30° and 2.33°±1.33°, respectively, compared with the bilat construct that limited motion to 1.96°±1.46° and 1.39°±0.73°. There was a trend suggesting that the bilat construct was the most rigid construct. CONCLUSIONS: In FE, the ISD can provide lumbar stability comparable with Bilat instrumentation. It provides minimal rigidity in LB and AR when used alone to stabilize the segment after an IBS placement. The unilat and the more typical bilat screw constructs were shown to provide similar levels of stability in all directions after an IBS placement, though the bilat construct showed a trend toward improved stiffness overall.

Hybrid dynamic stabilization: a biomechanical assessment of adjacent and supraadjacent levels of the lumbar spine.

OBJECT: The object of this study was to evaluate the effect of hybrid dynamic stabilization on adjacent levels of the lumbar spine. METHODS: Seven human spine specimens from T-12 to the sacrum were used. The following conditions were implemented: 1) intact spine; 2) fusion of L4-5 with bilateral pedicle screws and titanium rods; and 3) supplementation of the L4-5 fusion with pedicle screw dynamic stabilization constructs at L3-4, with the purpose of protecting the L3-4 level from excessive range of motion (ROM) and to create a smoother motion transition to the rest of the lumbar spine. An industrial robot was used to apply continuous pure moment (± 2 Nm) in flexion-extension with and without a follower load, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Intersegmental rotations of the fused, dynamically stabilized, and adjacent levels were measured and compared. RESULTS: In flexion-extension only, the rigid instrumentation at L4-5 caused a 78% decrease in the segment's ROM when compared with the intact specimen. To compensate, it caused an increase in motion at adjacent levels L1-2 (45.6%) and L2-3 (23.2%) only. The placement of the dynamic construct at L3-4 decreased the operated level's ROM by 80.4% (similar stability as the fusion at L4-5), when compared with the intact specimen, and caused a significant increase in motion at all tested adjacent levels. In flexion-extension with a follower load, instrumentation at L4-5 affected only a subadjacent level, L5-sacrum (52.0%), while causing a reduction in motion at the operated level (L4-5, -76.4%). The dynamic construct caused a significant increase in motion at the adjacent levels T12-L1 (44.9%), L1-2 (57.3%), and L5-sacrum (83.9%), while motion at the operated level (L3-4) was reduced by 76.7%. In lateral bending, instrumentation at L4-5 increased motion at only T12-L1 (22.8%). The dynamic construct at L3-4 caused an increase in motion at T12-L1 (69.9%), L1-2 (59.4%), L2-3 (44.7%), and L5-sacrum (43.7%). In axial rotation, only the placement of the dynamic construct at L3-4 caused a significant increase in motion of the adjacent levels L2-3 (25.1%) and L5-sacrum (31.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The dynamic stabilization system displayed stability characteristics similar to a solid, all-metal construct. Its addition of the supraadjacent level (L3-4) to the fusion (L4-5) did protect the adjacent level from excessive motion. However, it essentially transformed a 1-level lumbar fusion into a 2-level lumbar fusion, with exponential transfer of motion to the fewer remaining discs.