Femoral ring versus fibular strut allografts in anterior lumbar interbody arthrodesis. A biomechanical analysis

STUDY DESIGN: A comparison between femoral ring and fibular strut allografts in anterior lumbar interbody arthrodesis, as assessed by biomechanical analysis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the difference in stability and rigidity provided by the femoral ring allograft versus that provided by fibular strut allograft. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Two commonly used techniques for spinal arthrodesis at L4-L5 include the femoral ring allograft and the fibular strut allograft. The postoperative stability has not been evaluated biomechanically. METHODS: An anterior lumbar interbody fusion on seven cadaveric specimens was performed using femoral ring and fibular strut allografts. Biplanar radiography was used to measure the 6 degrees of motion of L4 with respect to L5 during a range of loading maneuvers. RESULTS: When an extension moment was applied, the femoral ring allograft extended 4.2 degrees more than the intact specimen, compared with 1.6 degrees with the fibular strut allograft (P = 0.18). When the flexion moment was imposed, lateral bending increased by 2.2 degrees with the femoral ring, compared with 0.7 degree with the fibular strut allograft (P = 0.06). During lateral bending, increased lateral translation was observed to be 0.9 mm with the fibular strut allograft compared with 1.4 mm with the femoral ring allograft (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Although not statistically significant, the fibular strut allograft creates a more rigid construct immediately after surgery during flexion-extension, lateral bending angulations, and lateral translation. One should consider using the fibular strut allograft over the femoral ring allograft, as it is more stable and rigid construct in the immediate postoperative period.     

The role of supplemental translaminar screws in anterior lumbar interbody fixation: a biomechanical study

The immediate stabilization provided by anterior interbody cage fixation is often questioned. Therefore, the role of supplementary posterior fixation, particularly minimally invasive techniques such as translaminar screws, is relevant. The purpose of this biomechanical study was to determine the immediate three-dimensional flexibility of the lumbar spine, using six human cadaveric functional spinal units, in four different conditions: (1) intact, (2) fixed with translaminar screws (TLS), (3) instrumented with anterior interbody cage insertion with the BAK system and (4) instrumented with BAK cage with additional TLS fixation. Flexibility was determined in each testing condition by measuring the vertebral motions under applied pure moments (i.e. flexion-extension, bilateral axial rotation, bilateral lateral bending) in an unconstrained manner. Anterior fixation with the BAK alone provided significant stability in flexion and lateral bending. Additional posterior TLS significantly reduced the motion in extension and axial rotation. TLS fixation alone resulted in smaller rotations than BAK fixation in all loading directions. Based on these results, it seems that interbody cage fixation with the BAK system stabilizes the spine in some, but not all, loading directions. The problematic loading directions of extension and axial rotation can be substantially stabilized by using translaminar screw fixation. However, one should emphasize that the degree of stability needed to achieve solid fusion is not known. Received: 14 August 1997 Revised: 28 May 1998 Accepted: 9 June 1998     

Biomechanical evaluation of stand-alone lumbar polyether-ether-ketone interbody cage with integrated screws

Background contextStand-alone interbody cages with integrated screws potentially provide a biomechanically stable solution for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) that alleviates the need for additional exposure for supplemental fixation, thereby reducing the chance of additional complications and morbidity.PurposeTo compare the stability of a stand-alone anterior interbody fusion system with integrated fixation screws against traditional supplemental fixation methods and to evaluate the difference between three and four fixation screws in the stand-alone cage.Study designIn vitro cadaveric biomechanical study.MethodsEight cadaveric lumbar spines (L2–sacrum) were tested using a flexibility protocol consisting of three cycles to ±7.5 Nm in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. The conditions evaluated were intact spine; polyether-ether-ketone cage (zero integrated screws) at L4–L5; cage (zero screws)+bilateral pedicle screws (PS); cage (three screws); cage (four screws); cage (zero screws)+anterior plate; and cage (three screws)+spinous process plate. Motion at the index level was assessed using an optoelectronic system.ResultsThe cage without integrated screws reduced the motion in flexion-extension and lateral bending (p<.001) compared with that in the intact spine. In axial rotation, mean range of motion (ROM) was 8% greater than in intact spine (p>.962). The addition of three integrated screws reduced ROM significantly compared with the cage without screws in all motion planes (p<.001). A fourth screw had no statistically significant effect on the ROM, although there was a trend toward less motion with four screws compared with three. In flexion-extension, the cage with three integrated screws and the spinous process plate was the most rigid condition. There was no significant difference from the bilateral PS (p=.537); however, this was more rigid than all other conditions (p<.024). The most stable condition in lateral bending and axial rotation was the cage with bilateral PS. In lateral bending, the cage (three or four screws) was not significantly different from the cage with anterior plate or the cage (three screws) with spinous process plate fixation; however, only the latter condition was statistically comparable with bilateral PS. In axial rotation, there were no significant differences between the conditions that included integrated screws or supplemental fixation (p>.081).ConclusionsBiomechanical testing revealed that the stand-alone cage with integrated screws provides more immediate stability than a cage alone and provides equivalent stability to ALIF constructs with supplemental fixation in lateral bending and axial rotation. Additional flexion-extension rigidity of the anterior cage maybe realized by the addition of a spinous process plate that was found to be as stable as supplemental bilateral PS.     

Biological cages

Restoring a stable anterior column is essential to achieve normal spinal biomechanics. A variety of mechanical spacers have been developed and advocated for both anterior and posterior approaches. The ability to radiographically assess the "biology" of bone incorporation in these mechanical (metal) spacers is an inherent limitation. The femoral ring allograft (FRA) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) spacers have been developed as biological cages that permit restoration of the anterior column with a machined allograft bone (biological cage). Test results demonstrate that the FRA and PLIF Spacers have a compressive strength over 25,000 N. The pyramid shaped teeth on the surfaces and the geometry of the implant increase the resistance to expulsion at clinically relevant loads (1053 and 1236 N). The technique of anterior column reconstruction with both the FRA and the PLIF biological cages are discussed. Clinical experience with the PLIF biological cage (10 patients) and the FRA biological cage (90 patients) has not revealed any graft migration, infection, or subsidence. Additional posterior instrumentation may increase the stability of the motion segment, but the degree of stability necessary to achieve a biological union remains unclear. The incorporation of these biological cages can be monitored by conventional radiographic techniques. The method of insertion preserves the vertebral end-plates and can be performed by a minimally invasive or standard open procedure.     

Biological cages

Restoring a stable anterior column is essential to achieve normal spinal biomechanics. A variety of mechanical spacers have been developed and advocated for both anterior and posterior approaches. The ability to radiographically assess the “biology” of bone incorporation in these mechanical (metal) spacers is an inherent limitation. The femoral ring allograft (FRA) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) spacers have been developed as biological cages that permit restoration of the anterior column with a machined allograft bone (biological cage). Test results demonstrate that the FRA and PLIF Spacers have a compressive strength over 25,000 N. The pyramid shaped teeth on the surfaces and the geometry of the implant increase the resistance to expulsion at clinically relevant loads (1053 and 1236 N). The technique of anterior column reconstruction with both the FRA and the PLIF biological cages are discussed. Clinical experience with the PLIF biological cage (10 patients) and the FRA biological cage (90 patients) has not revealed any graft migration, infection, or subsidence. Additional posterior instrumentation may increase the stability of the motion segment, but the degree of stability necessary to achieve a biological union remains unclear. The incorporation of these biological cages can be monitored by conventional radiographic techniques. The method of insertion preserves the vertebral end-plates and can be performed by a minimally invasive or standard open procedure.     

The effect of end screw orientation on the stability of anterior instrumentation in cyclic lateral bending.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Screw pullout at the proximal or distal end of multilevel anterior instrumentation can occur clinically. Previous laboratory studies have shown that angulation of vertebral body screws increases screw pullout strength and stability in toggling. PURPOSE: To determine the effect of end screw angulation on instrumentation construct stability after cyclic, lateral bending. STUDY DESIGN: A biomechanical study in calf spines comparing two anterior spinal instrumentation constructs, one with parallel polyaxial screws and the other with angled polyaxial end screws. METHODS: Sixteen instrumented constructs were made from eight thoracic (T8-T12) and eight lumbar calf spines (L1-L5). Eight (four lumbar specimens and four thoracic specimens) had five bicortical screws inserted mid-body and parallel to the end plates. The other eight specimens had two screws angled toward the superior end plates of the top two vertebrae; the middle vertebra had a mid-body screw parallel to the end plate, and the bottom two vertebrae had screws angled towards their inferior end plates. The constructs were then cycled in lateral bending, and the displacements of the two instrumentations with a 10 N-m bending load were compared. RESULTS: After 10,000 cycles, constructs with parallel end screws exhibited twice the average displacement than those with angled screws: 5.4 mm versus 2.9 mm (p=.031). CONCLUSION: The use of angled screws at the ends of anterior constructs demonstrated increased construct stability after cycling compared with traditional transverse screws. Although angled screw insertion is technically more difficult and is possible only with specific screw designs, its use might increase instrumentation longevity.     

Two or three screws for fixation of femoral neck fractures?

This study compares the stability of 3 cannulated cancellous lag screws with that of 2 cannulated cancellous lag screws for fixation of subcapital femoral neck fractures. Using 10 matched pairs of human cadaveric femurs, subcapital femoral neck osteotomies were created, reduced, and then randomized to 1 of the 2 fixation methods. The constructs were tested with anterior loading to 500 N, incremental axial loading from 100 N to 1000 N, and cyclic loading at 1000 N. The specimens stabilized using 3 screws showed greater resistance to anterior loading, less inferior femoral head displacement, and less superior gapping at the osteotomy site. Although 2 screws may be an acceptable fixation method for this fracture type, the addition of a third screw provides supplemental stability and appears justified.     

Less invasive posterior fixation method following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Current surgical trends increasingly emphasize the minimization of surgical exposure and tissue morbidity. Previous research questioned the ability of unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation to adequately stabilize posterior fusion constructs. No study to date has addressed the effects of reduced posterior instrumentation mass on interbody construct techniques. Unilateral surgical exposure for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) allows ipsilateral pedicle screw placement. Theoretically, percutanous contralateral facet screw placement could provide supplemental construct support without additional surgical exposure. PURPOSE: Identify the biomechanical effects of reduced spinal fusion instrumentation mass on interbody construct stability. STUDY DESIGN: An in vitro biomechanical study using human lumbar spines comparing stability of TLIF constructs augmented by: (1) bilateral pedicle screw fixation, (2) unilateral pedicle screw fixation, or (3) a novel unilateral pedicle screw fixation supplemented with contralateral facet screw construct. METHODS: Seven fresh frozen human cadaveric specimens were tested in random construct order in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation using +/-5.0 Nm torques and 50 N axial compressive loads. Analysis of torque rotation curves determined construct stability. Using paired statistical methods, comparison of construct stiffness and total range of motion within each specimen were performed using the Wilcoxon signed ranks test with a Holm-Sidák multiple comparison procedure (alpha=0.05). RESULTS: In flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, there were no measurable differences in either stiffness or range of motion between the standard bilateral pedicle screw and the novel construct after TLIF. After TLIF, the unilateral pedicle screw construct provided only half of the improvement in stiffness compared with bilateral or novel constructs and allows for significant off-axis rotational motions, which could be detrimental to stability and the promotion for fusion. CONCLUSIONS: All tested TLIF constructs with posterior instrumentation decreased segmental range of motion and increased segmental stiffness. While placing unilateral posterior instrumentation decreases overall implant bulk and dissection, it allows for significantly increased segmental range of motion, less stiffness, and produces off-axis movement. The technique of contralateral facet screw placement provides the surgical advantages of unilateral pedicle screw placement with stability comparable to TLIF with bilateral pedicle screws.     

Accelerating lumbar fusions by combining rhBMP-2 with allograft bone: a prospective analysis of interbody fusion rates and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) is an osteoinductive protein approved for use in the anterior lumbar interspace. High fusion rates with rhBMP-2 have been reported with threaded interbody allograft dowels. There may be a clinical benefit for the patient by adding rhBMP-2 to the allograft. PURPOSE: To compare the fusion rates and clinical outcomes of patients treated with allograft interbody fusions with and without the addition of rhBMP-2. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective consecutive patient enrollment with minimum 24-month follow-up. PATIENT SAMPLE: Seventy-five patients with lumbar interbody fusions at 1-3 spinal segments. OUTCOMES MEASURES: Clinical: Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Radiographic: X-ray and computed tomographic scan analysis using the Molinari-Bridwell fusion scale. METHODS: Seventy-five patients scheduled for lumbar fusion were enrolled sequentially. Group 1: 30 patients had anterior interbody allografts alone. Group 2: 45 patients had anterior interbody allograft filled with rhBMP-2. All cases had posterior pedicle screw instrumentation. A total of 165 surgical levels (62 allograft alone/103 allograft+BMP) were included. Fusion data and clinical outcomes were collected for a minimum of 2 years after surgery. RESULTS: Statistically higher fusion rates were observed in the patients with BMP at all time points compared with allograft alone. Group 2 (+ BMP) fusion rates were 94%, 100%, and 100% at 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Group 1 (-BMP) fusion rates were 66%, 84%, and 89% at the same time intervals. Clinical outcomes were significantly improved in Group 2 compared with Group 1 at 6 months. There were no revisions (0%) in the BMP group and 4 revision fusion surgeries (13%) in the allograft group. No untoward effects were attributable to the rhBMP-2. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms the efficacy of an innovative lumbar fusion technique: an interbody femoral ring allograft, combined with an osteoinductive stimulant (rhBMP-2), protected by pedicle screws. This combination of a structural interbody allograft with rhBMP-2 eliminates the insult of iliac crest harvest, allows for reliable radiographic analysis, and results in successful fusion formation in 100% of the cases in this study.     

Segmental stability and compressive strength of posterior lumbar interbody fusion implants

STUDY DESIGN: Human cadaveric study on initial segmental stability and compressive strength of posterior lumbar interbody fusion implants. OBJECTIVES: To compare the initial segmental stability and compressive strength of a posterior lumbar interbody fusion construct using a new cortical bone spacer machined from allograft to that of titanium threaded and nonthreaded posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages, tested as stand-alone and with supplemental pedicle screw fixation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cages were introduced to overcome the limitations of conventional allografts. Radiodense cage materials impede radiographic assessment of the fusion, however, and may cause stress shielding of the graft. METHODS: Multisegmental specimens were tested intact, with posterior lumbar interbody fusion implants inserted into the L4/L5 interbody space and with supplemental pedicle screw fixation. Three posterior lumbar interbody fusion implant constructs (Ray Threaded Fusion Cage, Contact Fusion Cage, and PLIF Allograft Spacer) were tested nondestructively in axial rotation, flexion-extension, and lateral bending. The implant-specimen constructs then were isolated and compressed to failure. Changes in the neutral zone, range of motion, yield strength, and ultimate compressive strength were analyzed. RESULTS: None of the stand-alone implant constructs reduced the neutral zone. Supplemental pedicle screw fixation decreased the neutral zone in flexion-extension and lateral bending. Stand-alone implant constructs decreased the range of motion in flexion and lateral bending. Differences in the range of motion between stand-alone cage constructs were found in flexion and extension (marginally significant). Supplemental posterior fixation further decreased the range of motion in all loading directions with no differences between implant constructs. The Contact Fusion Cage and PLIF Allograft Spacer constructs had a higher ultimate compressive strength than the Ray Threaded Fusion Cage. CONCLUSIONS: The biomechanical data did not suggest any implant construct to behave superiorly either as a stand-alone or with supplemental posterior fixation. The PLIF Allograph Spacer is biomechanically equivalent to titanium cages but is devoid of the deficiencies associated with other cage technologies. Therefore, the PLIF Allograft Spacer is a valid alternative to conventional cages.     

In vitro biomechanical comparison of an anterior and anterolateral lumbar plate with posterior fixation following single-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion

OBJECT: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is often supplemented with instrumentation to increase stability in the spine. If anterior plate fixation provided the same stability as posterior pedicle screw fixation (PSF), then a second approach and its associated morbidity could be avoided. METHODS: Seven human cadaveric L4-5 spinal segments were tested under three conditions: ALIF with an anterior plate, ALIF with an anterolateral plate, and ALIF supplemented by PSF. Range of motion (ROM) was calculated for flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial torsion and compared among the three configurations. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in ROM during flexion/extension, lateral bending, or axial torsion among any of the three instrumentation configurations. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of an anterior plate or posterior PS/rod instrumentation following ALIF provides substantially equivalent biomechanical stability. Additionally, the position of the plate system, either anterior or anterolateral, does not significantly affect the stability gained.     

Biomechanical stability of single-screw versus two-screw fixation of an unstable slipped capital femoral epiphysis model: effect of screw position in the femoral neck

PURPOSE: To biomechanically evaluate single screw and varying 2 screw fixations for an unstable slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) model using physiologically relevant loading. STUDY DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical study. METHODS: Twenty-four immature porcine proximal femurs were prepared to simulate a mild-to-moderate unstable SCFE. The femurs were randomized into 4 fixation groups: single screw, 2 screws horizontally placed, 2 screws vertically placed, and 2 oblique screws. Biomechanical testing determined maximum load to failure (N), load (N) at 2, 4, 6, and 8 mm of femoral head displacement, and stiffness (newtons per millimeter) for each group. RESULTS: No significant differences were found among the 3 different 2 screw configurations. The 2 screw constructs were 66% stiffer and 66% stronger than the single screw construct. In addition, whereas there was no difference at 2 mm of femoral head displacement, each subsequent displacement (4, 6, and 8 mm) demonstrated significantly higher failure loads when 2 screws were used for stabilization. CONCLUSIONS: Slipped capital femoral epiphysis stabilization with 2 screws leads to increased stability over single screw fixation; however, none of the 3 configurations/placement patterns of the 2 screw constructs seemed to be superior in fixation stability. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These data support the use of a 2 screw construct in acute/unstable SCFE fixation. The biomechanical benefit of 2 screws needs to be considered in the face of greater potential for inadvertent penetration into the joint with an increased number of screws.     

The in vitro stabilising effect of polyetheretherketone cages versus a titanium cage of similar design for anterior lumbar interbody fusion

This biomechanical study was performed to test the primary segmental in vitro stabilising effect of a standard and large footprint radiolucent poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) box cage versus a titanium box cage for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eighteen L2-L3 and sixteen L4-L5 cadaveric motion segments were divided into three groups and received a titanium cage or a radiolucent PEEK cage with standard or large footprint. All specimens were tested in three testing conditions: intact, stand-alone anterior cage and finally with supplemental translaminar screw fixation. Full range of motion and neutral zone measurements were determined and anterior cage pull out force was tested. The titanium design was significantly more effective in reducing the range of motion only in axial rotation. The larger footprint radiolucent cage did not increase stability as compared to the standard footprint. The titanium cage pull out force was significantly (P=0.0002) higher compared to both radiolucent cage constructs. Clinical relevance: Supplemental posterior fixation is strongly recommended to increase initial stability of any anterior interbody fusion cage construct. Although the biomechanical stability necessary to achieve spinal fusion is not defined, the radiolucent designs tested in this study, with a standard footprint as well as with a larger footprint, may be insufficiently stabilised with translaminar screws as compared to the titanium implant. Supplemental pedicle screw fixation may be required to obtain adequate stabilisation in the clinical setting.     

Which posterior instrumentation is better for two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion: translaminar facet screw or pedicle screw?

Purpose

To determine whether translaminar facet screws can provide stability equivalent to pedicle screws and whether the two posterior instrumentations have the same influence on the adjacent segments in two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Methods

In a biomechanical study conducted, we used 12 fresh human lumbar spines and tested an intact spine with a stand-alone two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion and anterior fusion augmented with pedicle screws or translaminar facet screws, under 400 N compressive preloads and 7.5 N m moments in flexion, extension, axial rotation and lateral bending, and measured the stiffness of the operated level, range of motion and intradiscal pressure at the adjacent levels.

Results

We found a significant increase in the stiffness of the segments operated, range of motion and intradiscal pressure at the adjacent superior segment in the stand-alone two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion during flexion, axial rotation and lateral bending, but a decrease in extension, when compared with the intact spine. The stiffness of operated segments, range of motion and intradiscal pressure in the adjacent segment are significantly higher in the two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion augmented with posterior instrumentation than in the stand-alone two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion. There was no significant difference between the two augmented constructs except that, at the adjacent superior segment, the intradiscal pressure was more in the construction augmented with a pedicle screw than with a translaminar facet screw in flexion.

Conclusions

Translaminar facet screws can provide stability equivalent to pedicle screws, but their influence on the adjacent segments is relatively lower; therefore, we suggest that translaminar facet screws be the choice in the optimal posterior instrumentation in a two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion.     

Biomechanics of an integrated interbody device versus ACDF anterior locking plate in a single-level cervical spine fusion construct

Background contextNo profile, integrated interbody cages are designed to act as implants for cervical spine fusion, which obviates the need for additional internal fixation, combining the functionality of an interbody device and the stabilizing benefits of an anterior cervical plate. Biomechanical data are needed to determine if integrated interbody constructs afford similar stability to anterior plating in single-level cervical spine fusion constructs.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to biomechanically quantify the acute stabilizing effect conferred by a single low-profile device design with three integrated screws (“anchored cage”), and compare the range of motion reductions to those conferred by a standard four-hole rigid anterior plate following instrumentation at the C5–C6 level. We hypothesized that the anchored cage would confer comparable postoperative segmental rigidity to the cage and anterior plate construct.Study designBiomechanical laboratory study of human cadaveric spines.MethodsSeven human cadaveric cervical spines (C3–C7) were biomechanically evaluated using a nondestructive, nonconstraining, pure-moment loading protocol with loads applied in flexion, extension, lateral bending (right+left), and axial rotation (left+right) for the intact and instrumented conditions. Range of motion (ROM) at the instrumented level was the primary biomechanical outcome. Spines were loaded quasi-statically up to 1.5 N-m in 0.5 N-m increments and ROM at the C5–C6 index level was recorded. Each specimen was tested in the following conditions:1. Intact2. Discectomy+anchored cage (STA)3. Anchored cage (screws removed)+anterior locking plate (ALP)4. Anchored cage only, without screws or plates (CO)ResultsROM at the C5–C6 level was not statistically different in any motion plane between the STA and ALP treatment conditions (p>.407). STA demonstrated significant reductions in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation ROM when compared with the CO condition (p<.022).ConclusionsIn this in vitro biomechanical study, the anchored cage with three integrated screws afforded biomechanical stability comparable to that of the standard interbody cage+anterior plate cervical spine fusion approach. Due to its low profile design, this anchored cage device may avoid morbidities associated with standard anterior plating, such as dysphagia.     

Anterior cervical fixation: analysis of load-sharing and stability with use of static and dynamic plates

BACKGROUND: Anterior plates provide stability following decompression and fusion of the cervical spine. Various plate designs have emerged, and they include static plates with fixed-angle screws, rotationally dynamic plates that allow the screws to toggle in the plate, and translationally dynamic plates that allow the screws to both toggle and translate vertically. The goal of this study was to document the effects of plate design following a single-level corpectomy and placement of a full-length strut graft and the effects following 10% subsidence of the graft. METHODS: A total of twenty-one cadaveric cervical spines (C2-T1) were randomized into three treatment groups and were tested for initial range of motion. A C5 corpectomy was performed, reconstruction was done with a full-length interbody spacer containing a load-cell, and an anterior cervical plate was applied. Load-sharing data were recorded with incremental axial loads. The range of motion was measured with +/- 2.5 Nm of torque in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Then, the total length of the interbody spacer was reduced by 10% to simulate subsidence, and load-sharing and the range of motion were retested. RESULTS: With the full-length interbody spacer, there were no significant differences in the abilities of the constructs to share load or limit motion. Following shortening of the interbody spacer, the static plate construct lost nearly 70% of its load-sharing capability, while neither of the dynamic plate constructs lost load-sharing capabilities. Also, the static plate construct allowed significantly more motion in flexion-extension following simulated subsidence than did either of the dynamic plate constructs (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although all of the tested anterior cervical plating systems provide similar load-sharing and stiffness following initial placement of the interbody spacer, the static plate system lost its ability to share load and limit motion following simulated subsidence of the interbody spacer. Both dynamic plate systems maintained load-sharing and stiffness despite simulated subsidence. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides an improved understanding of the immediate performance of anterior cervical fusion surgery with plate fixation.     

A biomechanical comparison of modern anterior and posterior plate fixation of the cervical spine

STUDY DESIGN: A biomechanical study was designed to assess relative rigidity provided by anterior, posterior, or combined cervical fixation using cadaveric cervical spine models for flexion-distraction injury and burst fracture. OBJECTIVES: To compare the construct stability provided by anterior plating with locked fixation screws, posterior plating with lateral mass screws, and combined anterior-posterior fixation in clinically simulated 3-column injury or corpectomy models. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Anterior plating with locked fixation screws is the most recent design and is found to provide better stability than the conventional unlocked anterior plating. However, there are few data on the direct comparison of biomechanical stability provided by anterior plating with locked fixation screws versus posterior plating with lateral mass screws. Biomechanical advantages of using combined anterior-posterior fixation compared with that of using either anterior or posterior fixation alone also have not been well investigated yet. METHODS: Biomechanical flexibility tests were performed using cervical spines (C2-T1) obtained from 10 fresh human cadavers. In group I (5 specimens), one-level, 3-column injury was created at C4-C5 by removing the ligamentum flavum and bilateral facet capsules, the posterior longitudinal ligament, and the posterior half of the intervertebral disc. In group II (5 specimens), complete corpectomy of C5 was performed to simulate burst injury. In each specimen, the intact spine underwent flexibility tests, and the following constructs were tested: (1) posterior lateral mass screw fixation (Axis plate) after injury; (2) polymethylmethacrylate anterior fusion block plus posterior fixation; (3) polymethylmethacrylate block plus anterior (Orion plate) and posterior plate fixation; and (4) polymethylmethacrylate block plus anterior fixation. Rotational angles of the C4-C5 (or C4-C6) segment were measured and normalized by the corresponding angles of the intact specimen to study the overall stabilizing effects. RESULTS: Posterior plating with an interbody graft showed effective stabilization of the unstable cervical segments in all loading modes in all cases. There was no significant stability improvement by the use of combined fixation compared with the posterior fixation with interbody grafting, although combined anterior-posterior fixation tended to provide greater stability than both anterior and posterior fixation alone. Anterior fixation alone was found to fail in stabilizing the cervical spine, particularly in the flexion-distraction injury model in which no contribution of posterior ligaments is available. Anterior plating fixation provided much greater fixation in the corpectomy model than in the flexion-distraction injury model. This finding suggests that preservation of the posterior ligaments may be an important factor in anterior plating fixation. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the posterior plating with interbody grafting is biomechanically superior to anterior plating with locked fixation screws for stabilizing the one-level flexion-distraction injury or burst injury. More rigid postoperative external orthoses should be considered if the anterior plating is used alone for the treatment of unstable cervical injuries. It was also found that combined anterior and posterior fixation may not improve the stability significantly as compared with posterior grafting with lateral mass screws and interbody grafting.     

Biomechanical evaluation of methods of posterior stabilization of the spine and posterior lumbar interbody arthrodesis for lumbosacral isthmic spondylolisthesis. A calf-spine model

In order to evaluate biomechanically the efficacy of four types of posterior instrumentation for the stabilization of isthmic spondylolisthesis of the lumbosacral spine, mechanical non-destructive cyclic testing in axial compression, flexion, extension, and rotation was performed on six fresh lumbosacral spines from calves. Each segment contained four motion segments, including the lumbosacral junction. Isthmic spondylolisthesis was created by sectioning the pars interarticularis of the sixth lumbar vertebra and all posterior ligaments between the fifth and sixth lumbar levels. Eight constructs were tested sequentially: (1) the intact spine, (2) the destabilized spine, (3) the spine fixed with Harrington double-distraction rods, (4) the spine treated with transpedicular Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation with a transverse approximating device, (5) the spine treated with Steffee transpedicular screws and plates, (6) the spine treated with posterior lumbar interbody arthrodesis, (7) the spine treated with Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation and posterior lumbar interbody arthrodesis, and (8) the spine treated with Steffee instrumentation and posterior lumbar interbody arthrodesis. One motion segment was involved in each construct, except for the spine that was fixed with Harrington instrumentation, which involved three segments. Strain across the supraspinous and anterior longitudinal ligaments was measured with two extensometers that were attached at the spondylolisthetic level and at the intact motion segments adjacent to the fixed level. Harrington instrumentation was the least rigid construct under any type of loading except axial compression (p less than 0.05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Biomechanical comparison of two-level cervical locking posterior screw/rod and hook/rod techniques.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Locking posterior instrumentation in the cervical spine can be attached using 1) pedicle screws, 2) lateral mass screws, or 3) laminar hooks. This order of options is in order of decreasing technical difficulty and decreasing depth of fixation, and is thought to be in order of decreasing stability. PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether substantially different biomechanical stability can be achieved in a two-level construct using pedicle screws, lateral mass screws, or laminar hooks. Secondarily, we sought to quantify the differential and additional stability provided by an anterior plate. STUDY DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical flexibility experiment comparing three different posterior constructs for stabilizing the cervical spine after three-column injury. METHODS: Twenty-one human cadaveric cervical spines were divided into three groups. Group 1 received lateral mass screws at C5 and C6 and pedicle screws at C7; Group 2 received lateral mass screws at C5 and C6 and laminar hooks at C7; Group 3 received pedicle screws at C5, C6, and C7. Specimens were nondestructively tested intact, after a three-column two-level injury, after posterior C5-C7 rod fixation, after two-level discectomy and anterior plating, and after removing posterior fixation. Angular motion was recorded during flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Posterior hardware was subsequently failed by dorsal loading. RESULTS: Laminar hooks performed well in resisting flexion and extension but were less effective in resisting lateral bending and axial rotation, allowing greater range of motion (ROM) than screw constructs and allowing a significantly greater percentage of the two-level ROM to occur across the hook level than the screw level (p<.03). Adding an anterior plate significantly improved stability in all three groups. With combined hardware, Group 3 resisted axial rotation significantly worse than the other groups. Posterior instrumentation resisted lateral bending significantly better than anterior plating in all groups (p<.04) and resisted flexion and axial rotation significantly better than anterior plating in most cases. Standard deviation of the ROM was greater with anterior than with posterior fixation. There was no significant difference among groups in resistance to failure (p=.74). CONCLUSIONS: Individual pedicle screws are known to outperform lateral mass screws in terms of pullout resistance, but they offered no apparent advantage in terms of construct stability or failure of whole constructs. Larger standard deviations in anterior fixation imply more variability in the quality of fixation. In most loading modes, laminar hooks provided similar stability to lateral mass screws or pedicle screws; caudal laminar hooks are therefore an acceptable alternative posteriorly. Posterior two-level fixation is less variable and slightly more stable than anterior fixation. Combined instrumentation is significantly more stable than either anterior or posterior alone.     

Biomechanics of stand-alone cages and cages in combination with posterior fixation: a literature review

Interbody cages in the lumbar spine have met with mixed success in clinical studies. This has led many investigators to supplement cages with posterior instrumentation. The objective of this literature review is to address the mechanics of interbody cage fixation in the lumbar spine with respect to three-dimensional stabilization and the strength of the cage-vertebra interface. The effect of supplementary posterior fixation is reviewed. Only three-dimensional stabilization evaluations in human cadaveric models are included. These studies involve the application of different loads to the spine and the measurement of vertebral motion in flexion-extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending. There are no published studies which detected any differences between different cage designs. However, it does seem that cages inserted from an anterior direction provide better stabilization to the spine than those inserted from a posterior direction. In general, anterior cages stabilize better than posterior cages in axial rotation and lateral bending. Cages from both directions stabilized well in flexion, but not in extension. Supplementary posterior fixation with pedicle or translaminar screws substantially improves the stabilization in all directions. The strength of the cage-vertebra interface from studies using human cadaveric specimens is also reviewed. The axial compressive strength of this interface is highly dependent upon vertebral body bone density. Other factors such as preservation of the subchondral bony end-plate and cage design are clearly less important in the compressive strength. Supplementary posterior instrumentation does not enhance substantially the interface strength in axial compression.