Preclinical testing of a wedge-rod system for fusionless correction of scoliosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical study. OBJECTIVES: This paper describes the biomechanical comparison of calf spines instrumented with a wedge alone versus a wedge-rod construct for the fusionless correction of scoliosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Current techniques for the correction of scoliosis require either anterior or posterior spinal fusion for correction. We propose a technique allowing correction via vertebral body osteotomies along with fixation using a wedge-rod construct without the requirement of intervertebral segment fusion. METHODS: Calf spines were used to test the biomechanical difference between the intact spine, transverse osteotomized spine with wedge-rod reconstruction, and transverse osteotomized spine with wedge alone reconstruction. Unconstrained segments (L1-L5) were first tested under five nondestructive static loading conditions to evaluate the intact stability of the operative motion segments in axial compression (-600 N), axial rotation (+/-5.0 Nm, 150 axial preload), flexion and extension (+/-5.0 Nm), and lateral bending (+/-5.0 Nm). Following the intact analysis, vertebral wedge osteotomies in the transverse plane were performed at the L2, L3, and L4 levels. The defects were reconstructed using the Sofamor Danek Wedge Spacer, and stainless steel TSRH one-quarter inch single rod with modified CD HORIZON 6.5-mm diameter vertebral body screws at each level (L2-L4). Standard CD HORIZON 6.5-mm bone screws and staples were used at the superior and inferior ends of the five-level construct. The wedge was on the left side and the rod and screw heads on the right side. After testing the reconstructed specimen, the TSRH rod was removed and the construct retested to evaluate the stability of the wedge alone reconstruction. RESULTS: Construct stiffness was calculated as the peak applied load (N or Nm) divided by the corresponding segmental displacement (mm or degrees) normalized to the intact specimen. Reconstruction static data are expressed as a percentage change from the intact condition. Statistical analysis included descriptives, a one-way analysis of variance, and the Student-Newman-Keuls test for multiple comparisons among the reconstruction groups. Axial compression: under axial compressive loads, the stiffness of the wedge-rod construct was approximately equal to that of the intact group. The stiffness of the wedge alone construct was 56% less than that of the intact group except for extension and left lateral bending. For the other modes of loading (right rotation, left rotation, flexion, extension, right lateral bending, and left lateral bending), the wedge-rod construct was stiffer than that of the intact group. The stiffness of the wedge alone construct was consistently less than that of the intact group. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this biomechanical comparison, the calf spines instrumented with the wedge-rod system for fusionless correction were significantly stiffer as compared to the intact calf spine. The wedges alone were not as stiff as the intact spine. This suggests that the theory of performing transverse osteotomies of vertebral bodies with fixation with wedge-rod construct for 8 to 12 weeks, followed by removal of the rod, could provide adequate fixation and correction of a scoliotic deformity without requiring fusion of motion segments.

The treatment of unstable thoracic spine fractures with transpedicular screw instrumentation: a 3-year consecutive series.

STUDY DESIGN: The treatment of unstable thoracic spine fractures remains controversial. Theoretical biomechanical advantages of transpedicular screw fixation include three-column control of vertebral segments and fixation of a vertebral segment in the absence of intact posterior elements. Additionally, pedicle screw constructs may obviate the need for neural canal dissection and potential neural element impingement by intracanal instrumentation. A 3-year consecutive series was performed to evaluate the use of transpedicular screw fixation in the treatment of unstable thoracic spine injuries. OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of transpedicular screw fixation in the upper, middle, and lower thoracic spine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The use of rod/hook and rod/wiring techniques has been evaluated in the treatment of thoracic spine injuries. To date, a study evaluating the safety and efficacy of pedicle screw instrumentation in the upper, middle, and lower thoracic spine has not been reported. METHODS: Thirty-two patients with 79 individual vertebral injury levels (T2-L1) treated with transpedicular spinal stabilization and bone fusion were evaluated during a 3-year consecutive series from 1998 to 2001. Patient charts, operative reports, preoperative and postoperative radiographs, computed tomography scans, and postoperative follow-up examinations and radiographs were reviewed from the time of surgery to final follow-up assessment. Radiographic measurements included: sagittal index, Gardner segmental kyphotic deformity, and compression percentage. RESULTS: A total of 252 pedicle screws were placed, of which 222 were placed in segments T2-L1. Clinical examination and plain radiographs were used to determine the presence of a solid fusion. Fracture healing and radiographic stabilization occurred at an average of 4.8 months after the initial operation. There were no reported cases of hardware failure, loss of reduction, or painful hardware removal. Two hundred fifty-two transpedicular screws were successfully placed without intraoperative complications. The mean preoperative sagittal index was 13.9 degrees, whereas the mean follow-up was 5.25 degrees (P < 0.001). The mean final correction of sagittal index achieved was 8.65 degrees, or a 62.2% improvement. The mean Gardner segmental kyphotic angle was 15.9 degrees, whereas the mean follow-up angle was 10.6 degrees (P < 0.0005). The mean compression percentage was 35.4, and at follow-up was 27.4 (P < 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: In carefully selected instances, pedicle screw fixation of upper, middle, and lower thoracic and upper thoracolumbar spinal injuries is a reliable and safe method of posterior spinal stabilization. Transpedicular screw fixation may offer superior three-column control in the absence of posterior element integrity and obviates the need for intracanal placement of hardware. Transpedicular instrumentation provides rigid fixation for upper, middle, and lower unstable thoracic spine injuries and produces early pain-free fusion results. These results provide evidence that with appropriate preoperative radiographic evaluation of pedicular size and orientation using computed tomography as well as radiograph assessment, transpedicular instrumentation is a safe and effective alternative in the treatment of unstable thoracic (T2-L1) spinal injuries.