A comprehensive biomechanical analysis of sacral alar iliac fixation: an in vitro human cadaveric model.

In BriefIn this in vitro investigation, we compared the multidirectional flexibility properties of sacral alar iliac fixation with conventional methods of sacral and sacroiliac fixation using nondestructive and destructive investigative methods. The study demonstrated that S1-2 sacral fixation alone significantly increases sacroiliac motion under all loading modalities, while sacral alar iliac fixation reduced motion in axial rotation at the sacroiliac joint and offers potential advantages of a lower instrumentation profile and ease of assembly compared to conventional sacroiliac screw instrumentation.

Comprehensive biomechanical analysis of three reconstruction techniques following total sacrectomy: an in vitro human cadaveric model.

OBJECTIVE Aggressive sacral tumors often require en bloc resection and lumbopelvic reconstruction. Instrumentation failure and pseudarthrosis remain a clinical concern to be addressed. The objective in this study was to compare the biomechanical stability of 3 distinct techniques for sacral reconstruction in vitro. METHODS In a human cadaveric model study, 8 intact human lumbopelvic specimens (L2-pelvis) were tested for flexion-extension range of motion (ROM), lateral bending, and axial rotation with a custom-designed 6-df spine simulator as well as axial compression stiffness with the MTS 858 Bionix Test System. Biomechanical testing followed this sequence: 1) intact spine; 2) sacrectomy (no testing); 3) Model 1 (L3-5 transpedicular instrumentation plus spinal rods anchored to iliac screws); 4) Model 2 (addition of transiliac rod); and 5) Model 3 (removal of transiliac rod; addition of 2 spinal rods and 2 S-2 screws). Range of motion was measured at L4-5, L5-S1/cross-link, L5-right ilium, and L5-left ilium. RESULTS Flexion-extension ROM of the intact specimen at L4-5 (6.34° ± 2.57°) was significantly greater than in Model 1 (1.54° ± 0.94°), Model 2 (1.51° ± 1.01°), and Model 3 (0.72° ± 0.62°) (p < 0.001). Flexion-extension at both the L5-right ilium (2.95° ± 1.27°) and the L5-left ilium (2.87° ± 1.40°) for Model 3 was significantly less than the other 3 cohorts at the same level (p = 0.005 and p = 0.012, respectively). Compared with the intact condition, all 3 reconstruction groups statistically significantly decreased lateral bending ROM at all measured points. Axial rotation ROM at L4-5 for Model 1 (2.01° ± 1.39°), Model 2 (2.00° ± 1.52°), and Model 3 (1.15° ± 0.80°) was significantly lower than the intact condition (5.02° ± 2.90°) (p < 0.001). Moreover, axial rotation for the intact condition and Model 3 at L5-right ilium (2.64° ± 1.36° and 2.93° ± 1.68°, respectively) and L5-left ilium (2.58° ± 1.43° and 2.93° ± 1.71°, respectively) was significantly lower than for Model 1 and Model 2 at L5-right ilium (5.14° ± 2.48° and 4.95° ± 2.45°, respectively) (p = 0.036) and L5-left ilium (5.19° ± 2.34° and 4.99° ± 2.31°) (p = 0.022). Last, results of the axial compression testing at all measured points were not statistically different among reconstructions. CONCLUSIONS The addition of a transverse bar in Model 2 offered no biomechanical advantage. Although the implementation of 4 iliac screws and 4 rods conferred a definitive kinematic advantage in Model 3, that model was associated with significantly restricted lumbopelvic ROM.

Biomechanical fixation properties of cortical versus transpedicular screws in the osteoporotic lumbar spine: an in vitro human cadaveric model.

OBJECTIVE Optimal strategies for fixation in the osteoporotic lumbar spine remain a clinical issue. Classic transpedicular fixation in the osteoporotic spine is frequently plagued with construct instability, often due to inadequate cortical screw-bone purchase. A cortical bone trajectory maximizes bony purchase and has been reported to provide increased screw pullout strength. The aim of the current investigation was to evaluate the biomechanical efficacy of cortical spinal fixation as a surgical alternative to transpedicular fixation in the osteoporotic lumbar spine under physiological loading. METHODS Eight fresh-frozen human spinopelvic specimens with low mean bone mineral densities (T score less than or equal to -2.5) underwent initial destabilization, consisting of laminectomy and bilateral facetectomies (L2-3 and L4-5), followed by pedicle or cortical reconstructions randomized between levels. The surgical constructs then underwent fatigue testing followed by tensile load to failure pullout testing to quantify screw pullout force. RESULTS When stratifying the pullout data with fixation technique and operative vertebral level, cortical screw fixation exhibited a marked increase in mean load at failure in the lower vertebral segments (p = 0.188, 625.6 ± 233.4 N vs 450.7 ± 204.3 N at L-4 and p = 0.219, 640.9 ± 207.4 N vs 519.3 ± 132.1 N at L-5) while transpedicular screw fixation demonstrated higher failure loads in the superior vertebral elements (p = 0.024, 783.0 ± 516.1 N vs 338.4 ± 168.2 N at L-2 and p = 0.220, 723.0 ± 492.9 N vs 469.8 ± 252.0 N at L-3). Although smaller in diameter and length, cortical fixation resulted in failures that were not significantly different from larger pedicle screws (p > 0.05, 449.4 ± 265.3 N and 541.2 ± 135.1 N vs 616.0 ± 384.5 N and 484.0 ± 137.1 N, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Cortical screw fixation exhibits a marked increase in mean load at failure in the lower vertebral segments and may offer a viable alternative to traditional pedicle screw fixation, particularly for stabilization of lower lumbar vertebral elements with definitive osteoporosis.

Biomechanical and anatomical considerations in lumbar spinous process fixation--an in vitro human cadaveric model.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although multiple mechanisms of device attachment to the spinous processes exist, there is a paucity of data regarding lumbar spinous process morphology and peak failure loads. PURPOSE: Using an in vitro human cadaveric spine model, the primary objective of the present study was to compare the peak load and mechanisms of lumbar spinous process failure with variation in spinous process hole location and pullout direction. A secondary objective was to provide an in-depth characterization of spinous process morphology. STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical and anatomical considerations in lumbar spinous process fixation using an in vitro human cadaveric model. METHODS: A total of 12 intact lumbar spines were used in the current investigation. The vertebral segments (L1-L5) were randomly assigned to one of five treatment groups with variation in spinous process hole placement and pullout direction: (1) central hole placement with superior pullout (n=10), (2) central hole placement with inferior pullout (n=10), (3) inferior hole placement with inferior pullout (n=10), (4) superior hole placement with superior pullout (n=10), and (5) intact spinous process with superior pullout (n=14). A 4-mm diameter pin was placed through the hole followed by pullout testing using a material testing system. As well, the bone mineral density (BMD) (g/cm(3)) was measured for each segment. Data were quantified in terms of anatomical dimensions (mm), peak failure loads (newtons [N]), and fracture mechanisms, with linear regression analysis to identify relationships between anatomical and biomechanical data. RESULTS: Based on anatomical comparisons, there were significant differences between the anteroposterior and cephalocaudal dimensions of the L5 spinous process versus L1-L4 (p<.05). Statistical analysis of peak load at failure of the four reconstruction treatments and intact condition demonstrated no significant differences between treatments (range, 350-500 N) (p>.05). However, a significant linear correlation was observed between peak failure load and anteroposterior and cephalocaudal dimensions (p<.05). Correlation between BMD and peak spinous processes failure load was approaching statistical significance (p=.08). 30 of 54 specimens failed via direct pullout (plow through), whereas 8 of 54 specimens demonstrated spinous process fracture. The remaining cases failed via plow through followed by fracture of the spinous process (16 of 54; 29%). CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated that variation in spinous process hole placement did not significantly influence failure load. However, there was a strong linear correlation between peak failure load and the anteroposterior and cephalocaudal anatomical dimensions. From a clinical standpoint, the findings of the present study indicate that attachment through the spinous process provides a viable alternative to attachment around the spinous processes. In addition, the anatomical dimensions of the lumbar spinous processes have a greater influence on biomechanical fixation than either hole location or BMD.