In-silico pelvis and sacroiliac joint motion—A review on published research using numerical analyses

BackgroundComputational models of the human pelvis have become highly useful tools to assess mechanisms of injury, diagnostics and treatment options. The purpose of this systematic literature review was to summarize existing pelvic computer models, to assess their comparability and the measures taken for experimental validation.MethodsResearch on virtual simulations of the posterior pelvis and sacroiliac joint available from the ISI Web of Knowledge, PubMed and Scopus databases available until January 2018 were included.FindingsFrom a total of 3938 articles, 33 studies matched the criteria. Thirteen studies reported on experimental biomechanics, of which seven were parametric. Thirteen studies focused on pelvic injury and surgery, three were clinical case reports. One study assessed the effects of lumbar surgery on the sacroiliac joint, three studies on diagnostics and the non-surgical treatment of the sacroiliac joint. The mode of load application, geometry, material laws and boundary conditions varied vastly between the studies. The majority excluded the lumbosacral transition as part of pelvic biomechanics, and used isotropic linear elastic material properties. Outcomes of the analyses were reported inconsistently with negative impact on their comparability, and validation was commonly conducted by literature with varying agreement of the loading conditions.InterpretationComparability and validation are two major issues of present computational biomechanics of the pelvis. These issues diminish the transferability of the in-silico findings into real-life scenarios. In-vitro cadaveric models remain the realistic standard to account for the present computational analyses which simplify the complex nature of musculoskeletal tissues of the pelvis.     

A biomechanical investigation of the retentive force of pedicle screw structures for different screw tulip designs

BackgroundPedicle screw based spinal fixation systems have been widely used for treating a variety of spinal diseases. The retentive force is an important factor that determines structural stability. The screw tulip design and the magnitude of nut tightening torque influence the retentive force. This study investigated the influences of varied tilt angles between the shaft-rod interface and varied nut tightening torques on the retentive force of the monoaxial, polyaxial, and uniplanar screws.MethodsThree types of tulip constructs were biomechanically tested. Two parameters that affect the retentive force include the tilt angle and the nut tightening torque. The retentive force was investigated by an axial gripping capacity test and axial torque gripping capacity test.FindingAmong all combinations of screw designs and tilt angles, the 12 Nm nut tightening torque offered a greater retentive force than the 8 Nm, except for monoaxial screws with a 0 degree tilt angle. For monoaxial screws, the retentive force was negatively correlated with increasing tilt angles. For polyaxial and uniplanar screws, the retentive forces remained constant with increasing tilt angles.InterpretationIn monoaxial screws, when the axis of the shaft isn't perpendicular to the axis of the rod, a gap is formed between the tulip-rod interface. This results in a decreased retentive force. In polyaxial and uniplanar screws, the contact surfaces were the same in different tilt angles, therefore, the retentive force remained constant, which was attributed to the adjustable tulips always being perpendicular to the axis of the rods.     

Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of lumbar foraminal stenosis

BACKGROUND CONTEXTTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) is an effective treatment for lumbar foraminal stenosis (LFS). However, the effects of TLIF with unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) on LFS treatment have not been clearly elucidated.PURPOSEWe conducted this study to compare clinical outcomes and radiographic results of TLIF with UPSF and BPSF 2 years after the surgical treatment.DESIGNProspective randomized study.PATIENT SAMPLEThis study included 23 patients undergoing TLIF with UPSF and 25 patients undergoing TLIF with BPSF.OUTCOME MEASURESClinical outcomes were evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS) for low back pain and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. Radiographic outcomes included foraminal height, disc space height, segmental lordosis, and final fusion rates.METHODSThe clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared between the UPSF and BPSF group. The postoperative improvements were evaluated in either group. Intraoperative data such as duration of operation and estimated blood loss were collected. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov.RESULTSAnalysis of the VAS and ODI scores showed significant improvements in clinical outcomes within each group. No significant differences between the 2 groups were noted in the improvements of the VAS and ODI scores. The mean operative duration and blood loss were significantly greater in the BPSF group than in the UPSF group. There were significant improvements in the height of the foramen and intervertebral space and segmental lordosis in both groups, while there was no significant difference between the groups in amount of the improvements. No significant difference was found in the final fusion rates.CONCLUSIONSTLIF is an appropriate procedure for LFS treatment. With balanced intervertebral support using a cage, UPSF could achieve similar and satisfactory effects on lumbar segmental stability and fusion compared to BPSF. The unilateral approach appears to be associated with slightly shorter operative time and less blood loss.     

Cefazolin prophylaxis in spine surgery: patients are frequently underdosed and at increased risk for infection

BACKGROUND CONTEXTPerioperative antibiotics are critical in reducing the risk of postoperative spine infections. However, the efficacy and optimal weight-based prophylactic cefazolin dosing is unclear.PURPOSETo determine (1) if inadequate weight-based prophylactic dosing of cefazolin affects infection rates after spinal fusions, and (2) identify the optimal dosing of cefazolin.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGSingle center retrospective cohortPATIENT SAMPLEPatients undergoing posterior cervical or lumbar spinal fusion between January 2000 and October 2020OUTCOME MEASURESPostoperative surgical site infection statusMETHODSPatients were grouped based on our institutionally derived dosing adequacy standards, 1 g for <60 kg, 2 g for 60 to 120 kg, and 3 g for >120 kg. Univariate comparisons and multivariate regressions identified the effect of inadequate dosing on infection rate. Patients were subsequently regrouped into cefazolin dose (grams) administered and logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curves were compiled to determine the probability of infection based on cefazolin dose and patient weight. Alpha was set at 0.05.RESULTSA total of 2,643 patients met inclusion criteria and 95 infections (3.6%) were identified. The infection rate was higher in the inadequate dosing group (5.86% vs. 2.58%, p<.001). Adequate dosing was a predictor of decreased infections after lumbar fusion (OR: 0.43, p<.001), but not posterior cervical fusions (OR: 0.47, p=.065). Patients were subsequently regrouped into 1 g or 2 g of cefazolin administered resulting in a 5.01% and 2.77% infection rate, respectively (p=.005). The area under the curve (AUC) and 95% confidence interval for one (0.850 [0.777–0.924]) and two (0.575 [0.493–0.657]) g of cefazolin demonstrated lower infection rates for patients given 2 g cefazolin.CONCLUSIONSPatients receiving an inadequate weight-based dose of preoperative cefazolin had an increased risk of infection following spinal fusion surgery. Two grams prophylactic cefazolin significantly reduces the likelihood of infection.     

Clinical risk factor status in patients with vertebral fracture but normal bone mineral density

BACKGROUND CONTEXTNormal bone mineral density (BMD) as measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is present in approximately 10% of older adults with fracture. BMD alone does not evaluate bone quality or clinical risk factors, and therefore, may not adequately capture a patient's fracture risk. Thus, despite a normal DXA-measured BMD, the underlying bone may be abnormal, suggesting that further bone health evaluation, and potentially, pharmacologic treatment may be warranted.PURPOSETo determine the prevalence of normal BMD, clinical fracture risk factors, and quantitative risk of fracture using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) in vertebral fracture patients with normal BMD enrolled in the Own the Bone registry, thus facilitating identification of those who meet criteria for anti-osteoporosis therapy.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGRetrospective, national registry-based cohort.PATIENT SAMPLEFrom July 2016 to July 2021, 1,807 patients age ≥50 who sustained a vertebral fracture and had DXA data available from within 2 years prior to enrollment in the American Orthopaedic Association's Own the Bone (AOA OTB) registry were included.OUTCOME MEASURESWorld Health Organization (WHO) DXA T-score based bone classification criteria; FRAX risk scores of major osteoporotic fracture or hip fracture.METHODSDemographic data, prior fracture site, and clinical fracture risk factors were collected. BMD status was classified by the WHO T-score criteria: ≥ -1.0 normal, -1.1 to -2.4 osteopenia, and ≤ -2.5 osteoporosis, with low bone mass including either osteopenia or osteoporosis. In normal BMD patients, FRAX scores were calculated with and without BMD, with the treatment threshold defined as a major osteoporotic fracture risk ≥20% or hip fracture risk ≥3%.RESULTSMean±SD age was 72.0±9.7, 78.1% were female, and 92.4% were Caucasian. Normal BMD was present in 7.9%. Clinical fracture risk factors including alcohol use ≥3 units/day and history of ≥2 falls in the year prior to enrollment were more common in normal BMD (11.2% and 28%, respectively) compared to low bone mass patients (3.4% and 25.2%, respectively). A prior vertebral fracture had occurred in 49.5% with normal BMD compared to 45.8% with low bone mass, while a prior non-major osteoporotic fracture occurred in 28.9% and 29.3% of normal BMD and low bone mass patients, respectively. In normal BMD patients, either a prior fracture or FRAX risk with BMD meeting treatment thresholds was present in 85%.CONCLUSIONSClear indications for receipt of pharmacologic therapy, ie, prior fracture or elevated fracture risk, were present in most patients with vertebral fracture and normal BMD enrolled in the AOA OTB. Prior non-major osteoporotic fractures were common and may be useful indicators of underlying bone disease. Surgeons must recognize that other important risk factors apart from BMD may indicate poor bone health, and thus, help guide further bone health evaluation.     

Development and validation of an automated planning tool for navigated lumbosacral pedicle screws using a convolutional neural network

Background contextNavigation and robotic systems have been increasingly applied to spinal instrumentation but dedicated screw planning is a time-consuming prerequisite to tap the full potential of these techniques.PurposeTo develop and validate an automated planning tool for lumbosacral pedicle screw placement using a convolutional neural network (CNN) to facilitate the planning process.Study Design/SettingRetrospective analysis and processing of CT and screw planning data randomly selected from a consecutive registry of CT-navigated instrumentations from a single academic institution.Patient SampleData from 179 cases was processed for CNN training and validation (155 for training, 24 for validation) leveraging a total of 1182 screws (1052 for training, 130 for validation).Outcome MeasuresQuantitative and qualitative (Gertzbein-Robbins classification [GR]) validation via comparison of automatically and manually planned reference screws, inter-rater and intra-rater variability.MethodsAnnotated data from CT-navigated instrumentation was used to train a CNN operating in a vertebra instance-based approach employing a state-of-the-art U-Net framework. Internal five-fold cross-validation and external validation on an independent cohort not previously involved in training was performed. Quantitative validation of automatically planned screws was performed in comparison to corresponding manually planned screws by calculating the minimal absolute difference (MAD) of screw head and tip points, length and diameter, screw direction and Dice coefficient. Results were evaluated in relation to inter-rater and intra-rater variability of manual screw planning.ResultsAutomated screw planning was successful in all targeted 130 screws. Compared with manually planned screws as a reference, mean MAD of automatically planned screws was 4.61±2.27 mm for screw head, 3.96±2.19 mm for tip points and 5.51±3.64° for screw direction. These differences were either statistically comparable or significantly smaller when compared with interrater variability of manual screw planning (p>.99 for head point and direction, p=.004 for tip point, respectively). Mean Dice coefficient of 0.61±0.16 indicated significantly greater agreement of automatic screws with the manual reference compared with interrater agreement (Dice 0.56±0.18, p<.001). Automatically planned screws were marginally shorter (MAD 3.4±3.2 mm) and thinner (MAD mean 0.3±0.6 mm) compared with the manual reference, but with statistical significance (p<.0001, respectively). Automatically planned screws were GR grade A in 96.2% in qualitative validation. Planning time was significantly shorter with the automatic approach (0:41 min vs. 6:41 min, p<.0001).ConclusionsWe derived and validated a fully automated planning tool for lumbosacral pedicle screws using a CNN. Our validation showed noninferiority to manual screw planning and provided sufficient accuracy to facilitate and expedite the screw planning process. These results offer a high potential to improve workflows in spine surgery when integrated into navigation or robotic assistance systems.