Laser Marking of Spine Rods Is Strongly Associated With Risk of Clinical Rod Failure.

INTRODUCTION: What is overlooked in clinical studies are the possibilities of manufacturing and design aspects of the instrumentation that could initiate rod fracture. Although revision because of hardware fracture is a small fraction of the overall revision rates (12.1% to 13.7%), there are sufficient numbers of revision cases where hardware removed can undergo a thorough metallurgic analysis. This study is unique in that rod characteristics, such as alloy, surface markings, and fracture type, seen at fracture surfaces are considered in the analysis. METHODS: This work was conducted under both a retrospective and prospective IRB. Patients considered for this study were between the ages of 18 and 85 years who underwent or were undergoing revision spine surgery with previous instrumentation in the cervical, thoracic, or lumbar region and evidence of at least one of the following: catastrophic hardware failure, pseudarthrosis, implant loosening, or nonfusion. Inclusion criteria were determined through radiographic and medical records review. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients who had revision procedures because of different indications were included; 101 rods were removed, tested for fracture, and included in the analysis. Laser marking is significantly (P < 0.0001) associated with rod fracture. Detailed analysis showed notable surface and subsurface changes as the result of the marking, such as surface melting, cracking, and notching, creating locations to initiate a fracture. The three most informative variables to clinical rod fracture using multiple regression modeling were body mass index, presence or absence of laser mark (yes/no), and length of posterior fusion (≤2 spinal levels/>2 spinal levels). It was found that the relative risk of rod fracture is 23 times higher during 20 postoperative years than in cases with this index <0.4. DISCUSSION: For a patient with a given body mass index, if they require a multilevel fixation greater than two levels and rods with laser marks are used, the risk of early rod fracture increases by 40%.

Pelvic Incidence Changes Between Flexion and Extension.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective single-center. OBJECTIVES: To investigate changes in pelvic incidence from flexion to extension. To assess interobserver error in the measurement of pelvic incidence. BACKGROUND: Pelvic incidence (PI) has been considered a static parameter since it was originally described. But recent studies have shown that PI can change with age and after spinal procedures. Changes in PI based on position have not been investigated. METHODS: Seventy-two patients who had obtained flexion and extension radiographs of the lumbar spine were identified using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. PI along with pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), and lumbar lordosis were measured in both flexion and extension by two independent measurers. Variations in all parameters and interobserver measurement reliability were analyzed for the entire group. RESULTS: PI changed significantly from flexion to extension with a general tendency to decrease: mean (-0.94°), p <.044. However, these changes might have had opposite vectors, and exceeded | 6°| (measurement error) in 20% of cases, with a maximum of 12°. Inconsistencies in changes of SS, as opposed to PT from flexion to extension, were found to be the major factor determining changes in PI (p >.001). Obesity significantly contributed to differences in PI between flexion and extension (p = .003). CONCLUSIONS: PI is a dynamic parameter that changes between flexion and extension. Changes in SS are the main factor involved in these changes, implicating movement through the sacroiliac joints as the cause. Obese patients have greater changes in PI from flexion to extension. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.