Comparison of a Novel Posterior Integrated Transfixation Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Approach to the Posterolateral and Lateral Approaches: A Cadaveric Biomechanical and Computational Analysis of the Fixation, Invasiveness, and Fusion Area.

IF 1.3 Q4 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Medical Devices-Evidence and Research Pub Date : 2024-10-25 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/MDER.S474734
Oluwatodimu Richard Raji, Joshua H Tandio, Sarah Mayer, Alexander Escobar, Brett A Himmelwright, Douglas P Beall, David L Caraway, Jeremi M Leasure
{"title":"Comparison of a Novel Posterior Integrated Transfixation Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Approach to the Posterolateral and Lateral Approaches: A Cadaveric Biomechanical and Computational Analysis of the Fixation, Invasiveness, and Fusion Area.","authors":"Oluwatodimu Richard Raji, Joshua H Tandio, Sarah Mayer, Alexander Escobar, Brett A Himmelwright, Douglas P Beall, David L Caraway, Jeremi M Leasure","doi":"10.2147/MDER.S474734","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To concurrently assess and compare the fixation efficacy, invasiveness, and fusion potential of a posterior integrated transfixation cage system to the posterolateral threaded implant and lateral triangular rod systems, in a cadaveric model.</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>Twelve (12) cadaveric sacroiliac joint specimens were utilized and tested within the single-leg stance multidirectional pure moment bending model. Each specimen was tested in the intact, destabilized, treated (using posterior, posterolateral, and lateral systems), and post-fatigue conditions by applying 0 to ± 7.5 Nm of moment in flexion-extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending while measuring the angular range of motion between the sacrum and ilium. Computational models were reconstructed from Computed Tomography (CT) scans and manufacturer surgical technique guides. The models were utilized to quantify the volume of bone removed during implantation and the surface area available for fusion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The posterior integrated transfixation cage system and the lateral triangular rods produced equivalent motion reduction in all motion planes (<i>P</i> > 0.583). The posterolateral cylindrical threaded implant produced less motion reductions than the posterior and lateral implants in flexion-extension (6% ± 3% vs 37% ± 10% and 33% ± 11%, respectively, <i>P</i> <0.05). The posterior system removed 22%-60% less bone volume from the sacrum and ilium (P<0.10), introduced 200%-270% more implant surface to the joint space (P<0.01) and decorticated 75%-375% more joint surface area (<i>P</i><0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The posterior integrated transfixation single-implant cage system is superior to the posterolateral cylindrical threaded single-implant system. Its performance in osteopenic bone is equivalent to the lateral triangular rod system in healthy bone; however, the posterior integrated transfixation cage system requires a single implant, while the lateral triangular rod system requires three. The posterior implant removes the least bone volume and has the most surface area for fusion, providing a significantly better opportunity for robust sacroiliac joint arthrodesis.</p>","PeriodicalId":47140,"journal":{"name":"Medical Devices-Evidence and Research","volume":"17 ","pages":"385-399"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11520714/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Devices-Evidence and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S474734","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To concurrently assess and compare the fixation efficacy, invasiveness, and fusion potential of a posterior integrated transfixation cage system to the posterolateral threaded implant and lateral triangular rod systems, in a cadaveric model.

Methods and materials: Twelve (12) cadaveric sacroiliac joint specimens were utilized and tested within the single-leg stance multidirectional pure moment bending model. Each specimen was tested in the intact, destabilized, treated (using posterior, posterolateral, and lateral systems), and post-fatigue conditions by applying 0 to ± 7.5 Nm of moment in flexion-extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending while measuring the angular range of motion between the sacrum and ilium. Computational models were reconstructed from Computed Tomography (CT) scans and manufacturer surgical technique guides. The models were utilized to quantify the volume of bone removed during implantation and the surface area available for fusion.

Results: The posterior integrated transfixation cage system and the lateral triangular rods produced equivalent motion reduction in all motion planes (P > 0.583). The posterolateral cylindrical threaded implant produced less motion reductions than the posterior and lateral implants in flexion-extension (6% ± 3% vs 37% ± 10% and 33% ± 11%, respectively, P <0.05). The posterior system removed 22%-60% less bone volume from the sacrum and ilium (P<0.10), introduced 200%-270% more implant surface to the joint space (P<0.01) and decorticated 75%-375% more joint surface area (P<0.01).

Conclusion: The posterior integrated transfixation single-implant cage system is superior to the posterolateral cylindrical threaded single-implant system. Its performance in osteopenic bone is equivalent to the lateral triangular rod system in healthy bone; however, the posterior integrated transfixation cage system requires a single implant, while the lateral triangular rod system requires three. The posterior implant removes the least bone volume and has the most surface area for fusion, providing a significantly better opportunity for robust sacroiliac joint arthrodesis.

新型骶髂关节后方综合移位融合方法与后外侧和外侧方法的比较:对固定、创口和融合区域的尸体生物力学和计算分析。
目的:在一个尸体模型中,同时评估和比较后方综合转位固定架系统与后外侧螺纹植入物和外侧三角杆系统的固定效果、侵入性和融合潜力:利用十二(12)个尸体骶髂关节标本,在单腿站立多向纯力矩弯曲模型中进行测试。每个标本都在完整、失稳、处理(使用后侧、后外侧和外侧系统)和疲劳后条件下进行了测试,在屈伸、轴向旋转和侧弯中施加 0 至 ± 7.5 牛米的力矩,同时测量骶骨和髂骨之间的角运动范围。计算模型是根据计算机断层扫描(CT)扫描结果和制造商的手术技术指南重建的。这些模型用于量化植入过程中移除的骨量和可用于融合的表面积:结果:后方综合转位固定架系统和外侧三角棒在所有运动平面上都产生了同等的运动减少效果(P > 0.583)。在屈伸运动中,后外侧圆柱螺纹植入物比后外侧植入物减少的运动量要少(分别为 6% ± 3% vs 37% ± 10% 和 33% ± 11%,P):后方整合输固定单种植体笼系统优于后外侧圆柱螺纹单种植体系统。该系统在骨质疏松骨质中的表现与健康骨质中的外侧三角杆系统相当;但是,后方整合经固定单种植体笼系统只需要一个种植体,而外侧三角杆系统需要三个种植体。后方植入体移除的骨量最少,融合的表面积最大,为骶髂关节关节固定提供了更好的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Devices-Evidence and Research
Medical Devices-Evidence and Research ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信