Biomechanical evaluation of a novel posterior integrated clamp that attaches to an existing posterior instrumentation for use in thoracolumbar revision.

STUDY DESIGN: An in vitro biomechanical study. PURPOSE: To evaluate the biomechanics of a novel posterior integrated clamp (IC) that extends on an already implanted construct in comparison to single long continuous bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) and rod stabilization system. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Revision surgery in the thoracolumbar spine often necessitates further instrumentation following a failed previous back surgery. Stability of these reconstructed constructs is not known. METHODS: Six osteoligamentous T12-L5 calf spines were tested on a spine motion simulator in the following configurations: intact, four level constructs (T13-L4), three level constructs (L1-L4), and two level constructs (L2-L4), by varying the ratio between BPS and IC. A load control protocol of 8 Nm moments was applied at a rate of 1°/sec to establish the range of motion value for each construct in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Statistical analysis was performed on raw data using repeated measures analysis of variance and significance was set at p<0.05. RESULTS: On an average, the reduction in motion for the four level continuous pedicle screw and rod construct (67%) was similar to those extended with integrated clamps (64%). Furthermore, for three level and two level constructs, no significant difference was observed between continuous pedicle screw constructs and those revised with the integrated clamps (regardless of the ratio between BPS and IC). CONCLUSIONS: The novel posterior IC showed equivalent biomechanical rigidity to continuous pedicle screw rod constructs in revision scenarios. Clinical studies on posterior rod adjunct systems are necessary to confirm these results.

Pedicle screw instrumentation of thoracolumbar burst fractures: Biomechanical evaluation of screw configuration with pedicle screws at the level of the fracture.

BACKGROUND: Posterior fixation alone may not be adequate to achieve and maintain burst fracture reduction. Adding screws in the fractured body may improve construct stiffness. This in vitro study evaluates the biomechanical effect of inserting pedicle screws in the fractured body compared with conventional short- and long-segment posterior fixation. METHODS: Stable and unstable L2 burst fractures were created in 8 calf spines (aged 18 weeks). Constructs were tested at 8 Nm in the intact state and then with instrumentation consisting of long- and short-segment posterior fixation with and without screws in the fractured L2 vertebral body after (1) stable burst fracture and (2) unstable burst fracture. Range of motion was recorded at L1-3 for flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Statistical analysis was performed with repeated-measures analysis of variance, with significance set at P < .05. The data were normalized to the intact state (100%). RESULTS: Both long- and short-segment constructs with screws in the fractured body significantly reduced motion compared with the stable and unstable burst fracture in flexion-extension and lateral bending. Fracture screws enhanced construct stability by 68% (on average) relative to conventional short-segment posterior fixation and were comparable to long-segment posterior fixation. CONCLUSIONS: Screws at the fracture level improve construct stiffness. Short-segment constructs may suffice for stable burst fractures. More severe injuries may benefit from fracture screws and can be considered as an alternative treatment to long-segment constructs.