Impaction grafting of lumbar pedicle defects: a biomechanical study of a novel technique for pedicle screw revision.

OBJECTIVE: The two most common revision options available for the management of loose pedicle screws are larger-diameter screws and cement augmentation into the vertebral body for secondary fixation. An alternative revision method is impaction grafting (pedicoplasty) of the failed pedicle screw track. This technique uses the impaction of corticocancellous bone into the pedicle and vertebral body through a series of custom funnels to reconstitute a new pedicle wall and a neomedullary canal. The goal of this study was to compare the biomechanics of screws inserted after pedicoplasty (impaction grafting) of a pedicle defect to those of an upsized screw and a cement-augmented screw. METHODS: For this biomechanical cadaveric study the investigators used 10 vertebral bodies (L1-5) that were free of metastatic disease or primary bone disease. Following initial screw insertion, each screw was subjected to a pullout force that was applied axially along the screw trajectory at 5 mm per minute until failure. Each specimen was instrumented with a pedicoplasty revision using the original screw diameter, and on the contralateral side either a fenestrated screw with cement augmentation or a screw upsized by 1 mm was inserted in a randomized fashion. These revisions were then pulled out using the previously mentioned methods. RESULTS: Initial screw pullout values for the paired upsized screw and pedicoplasty were 717 ± 511 N and 774 ± 414 N, respectively (p = 0.747) (n = 14). Revised pullout values for the paired upsized screw and pedicoplasty were 775 ± 461 N and 762 ± 320 N, respectively (p = 0.932). Initial pullout values for the paired cement augmentation and pedicoplasty were 792 ± 434 N and 880 ± 558 N, respectively (p = 0.649). Revised pullout values for the paired cement augmentation and pedicoplasty were 1159 ± 300 N and 687 ± 213 N, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Pedicle defects are difficult to manage. Reconstitution of the pedicle and creation of a neomedullary canal appears to be possible through the use of pedicoplasty. Biomechanically, screws that have been used in pedicoplasty have equivalent pullout strength to an upsized screw, and have greater insertional torques than those with the same diameter that have not been used in pedicoplasty, yet they are not superior to cement augmentation. This study suggests that although cement augmentation appears to have superior pullout force, the novel pedicoplasty technique offers promise as a viable biological revision option for the management of failed pedicle screws compared with the option of standard upsized screws in a cadaveric model. These findings will ultimately need to be further assessed in a clinical setting.

The Effect of Sacroiliac Fusion and Pelvic Fixation on Rod Strain in Thoracolumbar Fusion Constructs: A Biomechanical Investigation.

STUDY DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical study. OBJECTIVE: Investigate effects of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) fusion and iliac fixation on distal rod strain in thoracolumbar fusions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Instrument failure is a multifactorial, challenging problem frequently encountered by spinal surgeons. Increased rod strain may lead to instrumentation failure and rod fracture. METHODS: Seven fresh frozen human cadaveric specimens (T9-pelvis) used. Six operative constructs tested to investigate changes in rod strain at L5-S1 and S1-Ilium rods, posterior pedicle screws/rods from T10-S1 (PS), PS + bilateral iliac screw fixation, PS + unilateral iliac screw fixation (UIS), PS+UIS+3 unilateral SIJ screws, PS + 3 unilateral SIJ screws, and PS +6 bilateral SIJ screws. Uniaxial strain gauges were used to measure surface strain of rods during flexion-extension. RESULTS: In flexion-extension, bilateral iliac screws added significant strain to L5-S1 compared with long fusion constructs ending at S1 (PS) (P < 0.05). Unilateral iliac fixation exhibited highest strain to L5-S1 ipsilateral rod, was significantly higher compared with bilateral iliac fixation and PS construct. Unilateral and bilateral SIJ fusion did not significantly change L5-S1 rod strain compared with PS. When measuring S1-Ilium rod strain, unilateral pelvic fixation had highest reported rod strain, approached significance compared with bilateral iliac screws (P = 0.054). Addition of contralateral SIJ fusion did not affect rod strain at S1-ilium on side with unilateral fixation. CONCLUSION: Results showed additional fixation below S1 to pelvis added significant rod strain. Unilateral pelvic screws had highest rod strain; SIJ fusion did not affect rod strain. Findings can help guide surgeons when associated risk of rod failure is a consideration.Level of Evidence: N/A.

Bridge Plate Design Effects on Yield and Fatigue in Distal Radius Fracture Model.

Background Bridge plating for distal radius fractures is indicated for complex fractures with comminution, extensive articular involvement, and/or cases requiring immediate weight bearing. Bridge plate fixation of distal radius fractures is a well-documented treatment method; however, failures have been reported with repetitive loading through the bridged distal radius fracture. Plate design is implicated as a cause of plate fracture in select clinical studies but few mechanical tests comparing bridge plate designs have been reported. This study sought to determine the impact of plate design on bridge plates intended to allow for immediate weight-bearing. Methods Axial static ( n = 3) and dynamic testing ( n = 3) was performed on three distraction plates designs: bridge plate 1 (BP1) with central holes, bridge plate 2 (BP2) without central holes, and locking compression plate (BP3). Plates were loaded in axial compression with a simulated 10-mm fracture gap. Results Significant static load differences were noted between all groups. Static load to failure for BP1, BP3, and BP2 were 240 ± 5 N, 398 ± 9 N, and 420 ± 3 N, respectively ( p < 0.05). BP1 was the only plate series that failed during dynamic testing; all other plates achieved 100,000 cycles. Failure mode was a fracture occurring through the central screw hole of BP1. Finite element analysis demonstrated the effects of central screw holes on stress, strain, and plastic deformation under loading. Conclusion Unused screw holes are the mechanical weak points; plates designed without these central screw holes are expected to survive greater load values. The threshold for clinical importance will need to be determined by future studies.

A biomechanical investigation of the sacroiliac joint in the setting of lumbosacral fusion: impact of pelvic fixation versus sacroiliac joint fixation.

OBJECTIVE: The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a known source of low-back pain. Randomized clinical trials support sacroiliac fusion over conservative management for SIJ dysfunction. Clinical studies suggest that SIJ degeneration occurs in the setting of lumbosacral fusions. However, there are few biomechanical studies to provide a good understanding of the effect of lumbosacral fusion on the SIJ. In the present study, researchers performed a biomechanical investigation to discern the effect of pelvic versus SIJ fixation on the SIJ in lumbosacral fusion. METHODS: Seven fresh-frozen human cadaveric specimens were used. There was one intact specimen and six operative constructs: 1) posterior pedicle screws and rods from T10 to S1 (PS); 2) PS + bilateral iliac screw fixation (BIS); 3) PS + unilateral iliac screw fixation (UIS); 4) PS + UIS + 3 contralateral unilateral SIJ screws (UIS + 3SIJ); 5) PS + 3 unilateral SIJ screws (3SIJ); and 6) PS + 6 bilateral SIJ screws (6SIJ). A custom-built 6 degrees-of-freedom apparatus was used to simulate three bending modes: flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR). Range of motion (ROM) was recorded at L5-S1 and the SIJ. RESULTS: All six operative constructs had significantly reduced ROM at L5-S1 in all three bending modes compared to that of the intact specimen (p < 0.05). In the FE mode, the BIS construct had a significant reduction in L5-S1 ROM as compared to the other five constructs (p < 0.05). SIJ ROM was greatest in the FE mode compared to LB and AR. Although the FE mode did not show any statistically significant differences in SIJ ROM across the constructs, there were appreciable differences. The PS construct had the highest SIJ ROM. The BIS construct reduced bilateral SIJ ROM by 44% in comparison to the PS construct. The BIS and 6SIJ constructs showed reductions in SIJ ROM nearly equal to those of the PS construct. UIS and 3SIJ showed an appreciable reduction in unfused SIJ ROM compared to PS. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation demonstrated the effects of various fusion constructs using pelvic and sacroiliac fixation in lumbosacral fusion. This study adds biomechanical evidence of adjacent segment stress in the SIJ in fusion constructs extending to S1. Unilateral pelvic fixation, or SIJ fusion, led to an appreciable but nonsignificant reduction in the ROM of the unfused contralateral SIJ. Bilateral pelvic fixation showed the greatest significant reduction of movement at L5-S1 and was equivalent to bilateral sacroiliac fusion in reducing SIJ motion.

Biomechanical analysis of motion following sacroiliac joint fusion using lateral sacroiliac screws with or without lumbosacral instrumented fusion.

BACKGROUND: Sacroiliac joint hypermobility or aberrant mechanics may be a source of pain. The purpose of this study was to assess sacroiliac joint range of motion after simulated adjacent lumbosacral instrumented fusion, with or without sacroiliac joint fusion, with lateral sacroiliac screws. METHODS: In this in vitro biomechanical study, seven cadaveric specimens were tested on a six-degrees-of-freedom machine under load control. Left posterior sacroiliac joint ligaments were severed to maximize joint range of motion. Influence of lumbosacral instrumentation on sacroiliac joint motion, with or without fixation, was studied. FINDINGS: During flexion-extension in the setting of posterior sacroiliac joint injury and L5-S1 fixation, sacroiliac joint range of motion increased to 195% of intact. After fixation with lateral sacroiliac screws, average range of motion reduced to 144% of intact motion. Sacroiliac joint screws thus partially stabilized the joint and reduced motion. Use of 6 bilateral sacroiliac joint screws with L5-S1 screw and rod fixation in lateral bending and axial rotation yielded the greatest reduction in range of motion. Without lumbosacral fixation, baseline motion of the sacroiliac joint was reduced, and sacroiliac joint screw alone, using either 2, 3, or 6 screws, was able to restore motion at or below the level of an intact joint. INTERPRETATION: Sacroiliac joint ligament injury with existing lumbosacral fixation doubled sacroiliac joint range of motion, but thereafter, fixation with lateral sacroiliac screws decreased range of motion of the injured sacroiliac joint. Screw configuration played a minor role, but generally, 6 sacroiliac joint screws had the greatest motion reduction.