Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography-Based Specimen-Specific Kinematic Model for Ex Vivo Assessment of Lumbar Neuroforaminal Space.

STUDY DESIGN: Cadaveric study to accurately measure lumbar neuroforaminal area and height throughout the flexion-extension range of motion (ROM). OBJECTIVE: Create a new computed tomography (CT)-based specimen-specific model technique to provide insight on the effects of kinematics on lumbar neuroforamen morphology during flexion-extension ROM. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Nerve root compression is a key factor in symptomatic progression of degenerative disc disease because these changes directly affect neuroforaminal area. Traditional techniques to evaluate the neuroforamen suffer from poor accuracy, have inherent limitations, and fail to provide data throughout the ROM. METHODS: Six cadaveric specimens (L1-sacrum) were instrumented with radiopaque spheres and CT scanned. 3-Dimensional reconstructions were made of each vertebra and the sphere locations determined. During kinematic testing, the spheres were located in relation to optoelectronic targets attached to each vertebra. The result was a 3-dimensional representation of the specimen's CT reconstruction moving in response to experimental data. Bony contours of the L2-L3 and L4-L5 neuroforamen were digitized producing continuous neuroforaminal area and height data throughout the ROM. RESULTS: Neuroforaminal area and height linearly increased in flexion and decreased in extension. There was significant correlation between flexion-extension motion and percent change in area (L2-L3: 3.1%/deg, R = 0.94, L4-L5: 2.5%/deg, R = 0.90) and neuroforaminal height (L2-L3: 2.1%/deg, R = 0.95, L4-L5: 1.6%/deg, R = 0.93). Regression analysis showed that the ratio between neuroforaminal height and area is at least 1:1.5 such that a 100% increase in height is associated with an area increase of more than 150%. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to measure lumbar neuroforaminal area and height throughout flexion-extension ROM. The CT-based specimen-specific model technique can accurately evaluate the effect of kinematics on morphological features of the spine. The demonstrated increase in neuroforaminal dimension in flexion is consistent with treatment modalities used in clinical therapies to relieve radicular symptoms. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

The effect of posterior decompressive procedures on segmental range of motion after cervical total disc arthroplasty.

STUDY DESIGN: We quantified the segmental biomechanics of a cervical total disc replacement (TDR) before and after progressive posterior decompression. We hypothesized that posterior decompressive procedures would not significantly increase range of motion (ROM) at the index TDR level. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the kinematics of a cervical total disc replacement (TDR) before and after posterior cervical decompression. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A reported yet unaddressed issue is the potential for the development of same-segment disease after implantation of a cervical TDR and the implications of same-segment posterior decompression on TDR mechanics. METHODS: Eight human cadaveric cervical spines C3-C7 were tested in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation while intact, after C5-C6 TDR, C5-C6 unilateral foraminotomy, C5-C6 bilateral foraminotomies, and after C5 laminectomy in combination with the bilateral foraminotomies. Moment versus angular motion curves were obtained for each testing step, and the load-displacement data were analyzed to determine the range of angular motion for each step. RESULTS: Unilateral foraminotomy did not result in a statistically significant increase in flexion-extension ROM, and did not increase the ROM to a degree greater than normal. Although bilateral foraminotomies did increase flexion-extension ROM, motion remained within a physiological range. A full laminectomy added to the bilateral foraminotomies significantly increased ROM and was also associated with distortion of the load-displacement curves. CONCLUSION: With respect to segmental biomechanics as demonstrated, we think that for same-segment disease, a unilateral foraminotomy can be performed safely. However, the impact of in vivo conditions was not accounted for in this model, and it is possible that cyclical loading and other physiological stresses on such a construct may affect the behavior and lifespan of the implant in a way that cannot be predicted by a biomechanical study. Bilateral foraminotomies would require close observation and additional clinical follow-up, whereas complete laminectomy combined with bilateral foraminotomies should be avoided after TDR given the significant changes in kinematics. In addition, future disc replacement designs may need to account for changes after posterior decompression for same-segment disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

Biomechanical evaluation of a low profile, anchored cervical interbody spacer device in the setting of progressive flexion-distraction injury of the cervical spine.

INTRODUCTION: Anterior cervical decompression and fusion is a well-established procedure for treatment of degenerative disc disease and cervical trauma including flexion-distraction injuries. Low-profile interbody devices incorporating fixation have been introduced to avoid potential issues associated with dissection and traditional instrumentation. While these devices have been assessed in traditional models, they have not been evaluated in the setting of traumatic spine injury. This study investigated the ability of these devices to stabilize the subaxial cervical spine in the presence of flexion-distraction injuries of increasing severity. METHODS: Thirteen human cadaveric subaxial cervical spines (C3-C7) were tested at C5-C6 in flexion-extension, lateral bending and axial rotation in the load-control mode under ±1.5 Nm moments. Six spines were tested with locked screw configuration and seven with variable angle screw configuration. After testing the range of motion (ROM) with implanted device, progressive posterior destabilization was performed in 3 stages at C5-C6. RESULTS: The anchored spacer device with locked screw configuration significantly reduced C5-C6 flexion-extension (FE) motion from 14.8 ± 4.2 to 3.9 ± 1.8°, lateral bending (LB) from 10.3 ± 2.0 to 1.6 ± 0.8, and axial rotation (AR) from 11.0 ± 2.4 to 2.5 ± 0.8 compared with intact under (p < 0.01). The anchored spacer device with variable angle screw configuration also significantly reduced C5-C6 FE motion from 10.7 ± 1.7 to 5.5 ± 2.5°, LB from 8.3 ± 1.4 to 2.7 ± 1.0, and AR from 8.8 ± 2.7 to 4.6 ± 1.3 compared with intact (p < 0.01). The ROM of the C5-C6 segment with locked screw configuration and grade-3 F-D injury was significantly reduced from intact, with residual motions of 5.1 ± 2.1 in FE, 2.0 ± 1.1 in LB, and 3.3 ± 1.4 in AR. Conversely, the ROM of the C5-C6 segment with variable-angle screw configuration and grade-3 F-D injury was not significantly reduced from intact, with residual motions of 8.7 ± 4.5 in FE, 5.0 ± 1.6 in LB, and 9.5 ± 4.6 in AR. CONCLUSIONS: The locked screw spacer showed significantly reduced motion compared with the intact spine even in the setting of progressive flexion-distraction injury. The variable angle screw spacer did not sufficiently stabilize flexion-distraction injuries. The resulting motion for both constructs was higher than that reported in previous studies using traditional plating. Locked screw spacers may be utilized with additional external immobilization while variable angle screw spacers should not be used in patients with flexion-distraction injuries.

Unilateral cervical facet dislocation: a biomechanical study of several constructs including unilateral lateral mass fixation supplemented by an interspinous cable.

OBJECT: Both ventral and dorsal operative approaches have been used to treat unilateral cervical facet injuries. The gold standard ventral approach is anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. There is, however, no clear gold standard dorsal operation. In this study, the authors tested the stability of multiple posterior constructs, including unilateral lateral mass fixation supplemented by an interspinous cable. METHODS: Six fresh human cervical spine specimens (C3-T1) were tested by applying pure moments to the C-3 vertebral body in increments of 0.5 Nm from 0 Nm to 2.0 Nm. Each specimen was tested in the following 8 conditions (in the order shown): 1) intact; 2) after destabilization via injury to the C5-6 facet; 3) with bilateral C5-6 lateral mass screws and rods; 4) after further destabilization by creating a right unilateral lateral mass fracture of C-5 (which rendered secure screw placement into the right C-5 lateral mass impossible); 5) with unilateral left C5-6 lateral mass screws and rod; 6) with unilateral C5-6 lateral mass screws and rod supplemented with an interspinous cable; 7) with a bilateral multilevel dorsal construct C4-6; and 8) after a C5-6 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedure with a polyetheretherketone graft and plate. RESULTS: The bilateral C5-6 lateral mass construct reduced the range of C5-6 motion to 33.6% of normal. The unilateral C5-6 lateral mass construct resulted in an increased range of motion to 110.1% of normal. The unilateral lateral mass construct supplemented by an interspinous cable reduced the C5-6 range of motion to 89.4% of normal. The bilateral C4-6 lateral mass construct reduced the C5-6 range of motion to 44.2% of normal. The C5-6 ACDF construct reduced the C5-6 range of motion to 62.6% of normal. CONCLUSIONS: The unilateral lateral mass construct supplemented by an interspinous cable does reduce range of motion compared with an intact specimen, but is significantly inferior to a C4-6 bilateral lateral mass construct. When using a dorsal approach, the unilateral construct with a cable should only be considered in selected instances.

Biomechanical analysis comparing three C1-C2 transarticular screw salvaging fixation techniques.

STUDY DESIGN: This is an in vitro biomechanical study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the biomechanical stability of the 3 C1-C2 transarticular screw salvaging fixation techniques. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND DATA: Stabilization of the atlantoaxial complex is a challenging procedure because of its complicated anatomy. Many posterior stabilization techniques of the atlantoaxial complex have been developed with C1-C2 transarticular screw fixation been the current gold standard. The drawback of using the transarticular screws is that it has a potential risk of vertebral artery injury due to a high riding transverse foramen of C2 vertebra, and screw malposition. In such cases, it is not recommended to proceed with inserting the contralateral transarticular screw and the surgeon should find an alternative to fix the contralateral side. Many studies are available comparing different atlantoaxial stabilization techniques, but none of them compared the techniques to fix the contralateral side while using the transarticular screw on one side. The current options are C1 lateral mass screw and short C2 pedicle screw or C1 lateral mass screw and C2 intralaminar screw, or C1-C2 sublaminar wire. METHODS: Nine fresh human cervical spines with intact ligaments (C0-C4) were subjected to pure moments in the 6 loading directions. The resulting spatial orientations of the vertebrae were recorded using an Optotrak 3-dimensional Motion Measurement System. Measurements were made sequentially for the intact spine after creating type II odontoid fracture and after stabilization with unilateral transarticular screw placement across C1-C2 (TS) supplemented with 1 of the 3 transarticular salvaging techniques on the contralateral side; C1 lateral mass screw and C2 pedicle screw (TS+C1LMS+C2PS), C1 lateral mass and C2 intralaminar screw (TS+C1LMS+C2ILS), or sublaminar wire (TS + wire). RESULTS: The data indicated that all the 3 stabilization techniques significantly decreased motion when compared to intact in all the loading cases (left/right lateral bending, left/right axial rotation, flexion) except extension. All the 3 instrumented specimens were equally stable in extension/flexion and lateral bending modes. TS+C1LMS+C2PS was equivalent to TS+C1LMS+C2ILS (P > 0.05) and superior to TS + wire in axial rotation (P < 0.05). Also, TS+C1LMS+C2ILS was superior to TS + wire in axial rotation (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Fixation of atlantoaxial complex using unilateral transarticular screw supplemented with contralateral C1 lateral mass and C2 intralaminar screws is biomechanically equivalent to C1 lateral mass and C2 pedicle screws and both are biomechanically superior to C1-C2 sublaminar wire in axial rotation.