Biomechanical characteristics of an integrated lumbar interbody fusion device.

INTRODUCTION: We hypothesized that an Integrated Lumbar Interbody Fusion Device (PILLAR SA, Orthofix, Lewisville, TX) will function biomechanically similar to a traditional anterior interbody spacer (PILLAR AL, Orthofix, Lewisville, TX) plus posterior instrumentation (FIREBIRD, Orthofix, Lewisville, TX). Purpose of this study was to determine if an Integrated Interbody Fusion Device (PILLAR SA) can stabilize single motion segments as well as an anterior interbody spacer (PILLAR AL) + pedicle screw construct (FIREBIRD). METHODS: Eight cadaveric lumbar spines (age: 43.9±4.3 years) were used. Each specimen's range of motion was tested in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) under intact condition, after L4-L5 PILLAR SA with intervertebral screws and after L4-L5 360° fusion (PILLAR AL + Pedicle Screws and rods (FIREBIRD). Each specimen was tested in flexion (8Nm) and extension (6Nm) without preload (0 N) and under 400N of preload, in lateral bending (±6 Nm) and axial rotation (±5 Nm) without preload. RESULTS: Integrated fusion using the PILLAR SA device demonstrated statistically significant reductions in range of motion of the L4-L5 motion segment as compared to the intact condition for each test direction. PILLAR SA reduced ROM from 8.9±1.9 to 2.9±1.1° in FE with 400N follower preload (67.4%), 8.0±1.7 to 2.5±1.1° in LB, and 2.2±1.2 to 0.7±0.3° in AR. A comparison between the PILLAR SA integrated fusion device versus 360° fusion construct with spacer and bilateral pedicle screws was statistically significant in FE and LB. The 360° fusion yielded motion of 1.0±0.5° in FE, 1.0±0.8° in LB (p0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The PILLAR SA resulted in motions of less than 3° in all modes of motion and was not as motion restricting as the traditional 360° using bilateral pedicle screws. The residual segmental motions compare very favorably with published biomechanical studies of other interbody integrated fusion devices.

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.

Effect of prosthesis endplate lordosis angles on L5-S1 kinematics after disc arthroplasty.

OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that L5-S1 kinematics will not be affected by the lordosis distribution between the prosthesis endplates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve cadaveric lumbosacral spines (51.3 ± 9.8 years) were implanted with 6° or 11° prostheses (ProDisc-L) with four combinations of superior/inferior lordosis (6°/0°, 3°/3°, 11°/0°, 3°/8°). Specimens were tested intact and after prostheses implantation with different lordosis distributions. Center of rotation (COR) and range of motion (ROM) were quantified. RESULTS: Six-degree lordosis prostheses (n = 7) showed no difference in flexion-extension ROM, regardless of design (6°/0° or 3°/3°) (p > 0.05). In lateral bending (LB), both designs reduced ROM (p < 0.05). In axial rotation, only the 3°/3° design reduced ROM (p < 0.05). Eleven-degree lordosis prostheses (n = 5) showed no difference in flexion-extension ROM for either design (p > 0.05). LB ROM decreased with distributed lordosis prostheses (3°/8°) (p < 0.05). Overall, L5-S1 range of motion was not markedly influenced by lordosis distribution among the two prosthesis endplates. The ProDisc-L prosthesis design where all lordosis is concentrated in the superior endplate yielded COR locations that were anterior and caudal to intact controls. The prosthesis with lordosis distributed between the two endplates yielded a COR that tended to be closer to intact. CONCLUSIONS: Further clinical and biomechanical studies are needed to assess the long-term impact of lordosis angle distribution on the fate of the facet joints.