Biomechanical evaluation of a low-profile, anchored cervical interbody spacer device at the index level or adjacent to plated fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical study. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypotheses: (1) an anchored spacer device would decrease motion similarly to a plate-spacer construct, and (2) the anchored spacer would achieve a similar reduction in motion when placed adjacent to a previously fused segment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: An anchored spacer device has been shown to perform similar to the plate-spacer construct in previous biomechanical evaluation. The prevalence of adjacent segment disease after fusion is well established in the literature.There is currently no evidence supporting the use of an anchored interbody spacer device adjacent to a previous fusion. METHODS: Eight human cervical spines (age: 45.1 ± 13.1 yr) were tested in moment control (±1.5 Nm) in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation without preload. Flexion-extension was then retested under 150-N preload. Spines were tested intact and after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) at C4-C5 and C6-C7 with either a plate-spacer or anchored spacer construct (randomized). The specimens were tested finally with an ACDF at the floating C5-C6 segment using the anchored spacer device adjacent to the previous fusions. RESULTS: Both the plate-spacer and anchored spacer significantly reduced motion from the intact spine in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation (P < 0.005). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 fusion constructs in their abilities to reduce motions (P = 1.0). ACDF using the anchored spacer at the floating C5-C6 level (in between the plate-spacer and anchored spacer constructs) resulted in significant motion reductions in all modes of testing (P < 0.05). These motion reductions did not significantly differ from those of a single-level anchored-spacer construct or a single-level plated ACDF. CONCLUSION: The anchored spacer provided significant motion reductions, similar to a plated ACDF, when used as a single-level fusion construct or placed adjacent to a previously plated segment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

Transforaminal versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion in long deformity constructs: a matched cohort analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospectively enrolled, retrospectively analyzed matched cohort analysis. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the relative merits of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) when performed in long deformity constructs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Interbody fusion is frequently used at the caudal levels of long-segment spinal deformity instrumentation constructs to protect the sacral implants and enhance fusion rates. However, there is a paucity of literature regarding which technique is more efficacious. METHODS: Forty-two patients who underwent TLIF and 42 patients who underwent ALIF were matched with respect to age, sex, comorbidities, curve magnitude, fusion length, and ALIF/TLIF level. Radiographs and clinical outcomes were compared at minimum 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: Age averaged 54.0 years and instrumented vertebrae averaged 13.6. TLIFs had less operative time (481 vs. 595 min, P = 0.0007), but greater blood loss (2011 vs. 1281 mL, P = 0.0002). Overall complications (TLIF, 12/42 vs. ALIF, 15/42) and neurological complications (TLIF, 4/42 vs. ALIF, 3/42) did not differ. One pseudarthrosis occurred at an ALIF level, with none at TLIF levels. Patients who underwent ALIF began with lower SRS scores but showed more improvement (44.4 to 70.7 vs. 58.6 to 70.6, P = 0.0043). ODI scores in both groups improved similarly. Regionally, ALIFs engendered more lordosis than TLIFs at L3-S1 (gain of 6.9° vs. -2.6°, P < 0.0001) but not T12-S1 (gain of 11.5° vs. 7.9°, P = 0.29). Locally, ALIFs created more lordosis at L4-L5 (gain of 5.6° vs. -1.7°, P < 0.0001) and L5-S1 (gain of 2.5° vs. -1.4°, P = 0.022), but not at L3-L4 (gain of 5.3° vs. 4.0°, P = 0.65). Patients who underwent TLIF obtained greater correction of anteroposterior Cobb angles in lumbar (reduction of 22.4° vs. 9.9°, P < 0.0001) and lumbosacral curves (reduction of 10.3° vs. 3.4°, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Spinal deformity surgery used TLIFs rather than ALIFs resulted in shorter operative time with no difference in complication rates. ALIFs provided more segmental lordosis, whereas TLIFs afforded better correction of scoliotic curves.