Topping-Off a Long Thoracic Stabilization With Semi-Rigid Constructs May Have Favorable Biomechanical Effects to Prevent Proximal Junctional Kyphosis: A Biomechanical Comparison.

STUDY DESIGN: In-vitro cadaveric biomechanical study. OBJECTIVES: Long posterior spinal fusion is a standard treatment for adult spinal deformity. However, these rigid constructs are known to alter motion and stress to the adjacent non-instrumented vertebrae, increasing the risk of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK). This study aimed to biomechanically compare a standard rigid construct vs constructs "topped off" with a semi-rigid construct. By understanding semi-rigid constructs' effect on motion and overall construct stiffness, surgeons and researchers could better optimize fusion constructs to potentially decrease the risk of PJK and the need for revision surgery. METHODS: Nine human cadaveric spines (T1-T12) underwent non-destructive biomechanical range of motion tests in pure bending or torsion and were instrumented with an all-pedicle-screw (APS) construct from T6-T9. The specimens were sequentially instrumented with semi-rigid constructs at T5: (i) APS plus sublaminar bands; (ii) APS plus supralaminar hooks; (iii) APS plus transverse process hooks; and (iv) APS plus short pedicle screws. RESULTS: APS plus transverse process hooks had a range of motion (ie, relative angle) for T4-T5 and T5-T6, as well as an overall mechanical stiffness for T1-T12, that was more favourable, as it reduced motion at adjacent levels without a stark increase in stiffness. Moreover, APS plus transverse process hooks had the most linear change for range of motion across the entire T3-T7 range. CONCLUSIONS: Present findings suggest that APS plus transverse process hooks has a favourable biomechanical effect that may reduce PJK for long spinal fusions compared to the other constructs examined.

Biomechanical Comparison of Subsidence Between Patient-Specific and Non-Patient-Specific Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages.

STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical study. OBJECTIVES: Several strategies to improve the surface of contact between an interbody device and the endplate have been employed to attenuate the risk of cage subsidence. 3D-printed patient-specific cages have been presented as a promising alternative to help mitigate that risk, but there is a lack of biomechanical evidence supporting their use. We aim to evaluate the biomechanical performance of 3D printed patient-specific lumbar interbody fusion cages in relation to commercial cages in preventing subsidence. METHODS: A cadaveric model is used to investigate the possible advantage of 3D printed patient-specific cages matching the endplate contour using CT-scan imaging in preventing subsidence in relation to commercially available cages (Medtronic Fuse and Capstone). Peak failure force and stiffness were analyzed outcomes for both comparison groups. RESULTS: PS cages resulted in significantly higher construct stiffness when compared to both commercial cages tested (>59%). PS cage peak failure force was 64% higher when compared to Fuse cage (P < .001) and 18% higher when compared to Capstone cage (P = .086). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-specific cages required higher compression forces to produce failure and increased the cage-endplate construct' stiffness, decreasing subsidence risk.

Accuracy of Patient-Specific Drill Guide Template for Bilateral C1-C2 Laminar Screw Placement: A Cadaveric Study.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the accuracy of using patient-specific drill guides to place bilateral laminar screws in C1 and C2. METHODS: Nine cervical specimens (8 males; mean age: 66.6 [56-73]) with the occiput attached (C0-C3) were used in this study. Preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans were used to create digital anatomic models for templating and guide creation. A total of 36 screws were placed with the aid of 3-dimensional printed, patient-specific guides (2 screws at C1 and C2). Postoperative CT scans were performed following screw insertion. The planned and actual trajectories were compared using preoperative and postoperative imaging based on the angular and entry point deviation. After screw placement and postoperative imaging, each specimen was dissected and performed a visual inspection for breaches. RESULTS: No breaches or violations were observed on postprocedural CT and visual inspection. The average variation of the entry point in the X, Y, and Z axes was 0.3 ± 0.28, 0.41 ± 0.38, and 0.29 ± 0.24, respectively. No statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) was observed between the planned and obtained entry points. There was no significant difference (P > 0.05) in the deviation analysis between the planned and obtained angles in the axial and coronal planes. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates that patient-specific drill guides allow for accurate C1 and C2 bilateral laminar screw placement, with a low risk of cortical breach.

Biomechanical comparison of 3 types of transdiscal fixation implants for fixing high-grade L5/S1 spine spondylolisthesis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: There are several options for the stabilization of high-grade lumbosacral spondylolisthesis including transdiscal screws, the Bohlman technique (transdiscal fibular strut) and the modified Bohlman technique (transdiscal titanium mesh cage). The choice of an optimum construct remains controversial; therefore, we endeavoured to study and compare the biomechanical performance of these 3 techniques. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare 3 types of transdiscal fixation biomechanically in an in vitro porcine lumbar-sacral spine model. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Porcine cadaveric biomechanical study. METHODS: 18 complete lumbar-sacral porcine spines were split into 3 repair groups, transdiscal screws (TS), Bohlman technique, and a modified Bohlman technique (MBT). Range of motion (L3 - S1) was measured in an intact and repaired state for flexion, extension, left/right lateral bending, and left/right torsion. To recreate a high-grade lumbosacral spondylolisthesis a bilateral L5/S1 facetectomy, removing the intervertebral disc completely, and the L5 body was displaced 50%-60% over the sacral promontory. Results were analyzed and compared to intact baseline measurements. Standard quasi-static moments (5 Nm) were applied in all modes. RESULTS: All range of motion (ROM) were in reference to intact baseline values. TS had the lowest ROM in all modes (p=.006-.495). Statistical difference was found only in extension for TS vs. BT (p=.011) and TS vs. MBT (p=.014). No bone or implant failures occurred. CONCLUSION: TS provided the lowest ROM in all modes of loading compared to Bohlman technique and MBT. Our study indicates that TS results in the most biomechanically stable construct. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Knowledge of the biomechanical attributes of various constructs could aid physicians in choosing a surgical construct for their patients.

Anatomical relationship between the accessory process of the lumbar spine and the pedicle screw entry point.

INTRODUCTION: The vertebra accessory process (or tubercle) of the lumbar spine is an understated landmark which lies caudal to the mammillary process at the base of the transverse process. To our knowledge, no studies compare its relation to pedicle entry point for screw placement. We proposed to evaluate whether a valid and reliable relationship exists between the accessory process and the projected pedicle axis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The distance between the tip of the accessory process and the entry point of the pedicle screw was measured for 50 pedicles. The angle between this axis and the midline was measured. Interrater reliability was assessed intraclass correlation coefficient for two raters. Statistical analysis of the results was performed using SPSS. RESULTS: The mean distance between the tip of accessory process and pedicle screw entry point was 6.58 mm (SD ±2.05), and the mean angle between this axis and the midline was 29.4° medial (SD ±10.08). The ICC for the two raters for the mean distance and the mean angle was 0.974 and 0.894. The calculated mean distance between the tip of the accessory process and pedicle screw entry point was 3.2 mm (SD ±1.3) and 5.7 mm (SD ±1.9) medial and cranial respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The accessory process is a consistent and reliable landmark to guide pedicle screw entry point, and compliments other screw insertion techniques. To our knowledge, this is the first study in the published literature to assess this relationship.