Title

Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy Construct Optimization: A Cadaveric Study of Various Multirod and Interbody Configurations

Document Type

Article

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: Fourteen cadaveric specimens were separated into 2 groups: L3 pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) with TLIF or (2) LLIF. A 2-rod configuration (2R) was compared with 2 supplemental rod configurations: 4-rod (4R) with accessory rods (ARs) using connectors or 4R with satellite rods (SRs) without connectors. OBJECTIVE: Compare PSO constructs with different rod configurations and adjacent-level interbody support. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Supplemental rods and anterior column support enhance biomechanical performance. METHODS: Pure moments were applied in 1) intact, 2) pedicle screws and rods, 3) PSO + 2R, 4) 4R AR, and 5) 4R SR conditions. Primary and supplemental rods had strain gauges across the index level. Sacral screw bending moments and range of motion (ROM) were recorded. RESULTS: For TLIF, AR decreased ROM during flexion (p = 0.02) and extension (p < 0.001) versus 2R. For LLIF, AR and SR decreased motion versus 2R during left (AR: p = 0.03; SR: p = 0.04) and right (AR: p = 0.002; SR: p = 0.01) axial rotation. For LLIF, sacral screw strain increased with SR compared with AR in compression and right lateral bending (p≤0.03). During lateral bending, rod strain increased with PSO+TLIF+SR versus PSO+LLIF+2R and PSO+LLIF+AR (p≤0.02). For LLIF, SR configuration increased rod strain versus AR during flexion, extension, and lateral bending (p≤0.01); for TLIF, rod strain increased with SR versus AR during extension (p = 0.03). For LLIF, AR configuration increased posterior supplemental rod strain versus SR during flexion (p = 0.02) and lateral bending (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both supplemental rod configurations reduced motion in both groups. Constructs with the SR configuration increased the primary rod strain and the sacral screw bending moment compared with AR constructs, which can share strain. Deep-seated SRs, which have become increasingly popular, may be more vulnerable to failure than ARs. LLIF provided more stability in sagittal plane. Protective effect of supplemental rods on rod strain was more effective with TLIF.

Publication Date

1-31-2022

Publication Title

Spine

E-ISSN

1528-1159

PubMed ID

35102122

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1097/BRS.0000000000004328

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS