Maximizing screw length in expandable lateral lumbar interbody spacers with integrated fixation may obviate the need for supplemental pedicle screws.

IF 4.9 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Gregory M Malham, Wenhai Wang, Joshua P McGuckin, Jonathan M Mahoney, Dean T Biddau, Brandon S Bucklen
{"title":"Maximizing screw length in expandable lateral lumbar interbody spacers with integrated fixation may obviate the need for supplemental pedicle screws.","authors":"Gregory M Malham, Wenhai Wang, Joshua P McGuckin, Jonathan M Mahoney, Dean T Biddau, Brandon S Bucklen","doi":"10.1016/j.spinee.2025.01.035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background context: </strong>Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a minimally invasive surgical technique that provides a wide footprint interbody cage for correction of lumbar coronal and sagittal deformity. Traditional spinal interbody fusion procedures utilize pedicle screws and rods for additional stability. An expandable lateral titanium interbody cage with an integrated lateral fixation (eLLIFp) device provides a stand-alone LLIF that is intended to function autonomously. This may reduce the complexity of the surgery and the potential risks associated with supplemental posterior instrumentation. The minimum-acceptable screw length to promote adequate biomechanical fixation and stability for a stand-alone eLLIFp has not been determined.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the effective ratio (of screw length/cage length) of a stand-alone eLLIFp construct that provides adequate biomechanical fixation and stability as compared to the eLLIFp with supplemental bilateral pedicle screw-rod fixation.</p><p><strong>Study design/setting: </strong>In vitro cadaveric biomechanical testing and finite element modeling.</p><p><strong>Patient sample: </strong>Eight fresh-frozen human cadaveric lumbar spine specimens (L2-5) were used.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>Range-of-motion (ROM) measurements of intact and treated specimens with simulated stresses within the construct and surrounding bone during flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Specimens with similar age and DEXA scores were selected. ROM of intact specimens was measured before treatment with LLIF at L3-4. Specimens were treated with expandable lateral cages with integrated fixation (stand-alone eLLIFp) or eLLIFp with supplemental posterior fixation using bilateral pedicle screws and rods (eLLIFp + BPS). ROM was measured using a custom-built 6-degrees-of-freedom motion simulator (±7.5Nm) and normalized as a percentage of intact. Four patient-specific lumbar functional spinal unit finite element models (FEMs) were developed, validated, and then instrumented with eLLIFp stand-alone devices. The integrated screw lengths were varied to achieve screw-to-cage length ratios of 0.6, 0.75 and 0.9. Stresses were compared among the constructs under a 7.5Nm pure moment load in FE, LB, and AR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The stand-alone and posteriorly supplemented eLLIFp constructs were not sensitive to the ratio during FE and LB (with only a 4%-9% change in motion trends from low-to-high ratios, relative to intact). Independent of ratio, these constructs had minimal differences in FE and LB motion. However, during AR both constructs were sensitive to the ratio showing greater stability and less variability in performance with higher ratios (≥0.65). Regression analysis revealed that posteriorly supplemented eLLIFp constructs had a linear 13% reduction in AR motion as the ratio increased from low-to-high (p<.05). AR also imposed the highest stresses on the eLLIFp and these stresses increased with higher ratios (maximum stress 259MPa for ratio 0.9 during AR), yet implant failure was improbable because of the material properties of the titanium alloy used. Similarly, surrounding bone stresses were higher during AR and longer screws reduced these stresses (63MPa with a 0.6 ratio compared to 38MPa with a 0.9 ratio).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Independent of screw-to-cage length ratio, eLLIFp had comparable reduction of FE and LB motion with or without posterior fixation. For eLLIFp with and without posterior fixation, torsional performance and repeatability increased with screw-to-cage length ratio. Torsional stability was comparable between stand-alone eLLIFp with high ratios (≥0.65) and posteriorly supplemented eLLIFp with low ratios (0.55). However, a threshold screw-to-cage length ratio for optimizing the clinical performance of eLLIFp cannot be prescribed. Implant stress findings reinforced torsion as the critical loading condition. Surrounding bone stress decreased as the screw length increased, indicating the benefit of using longer screws. Surgeons using eLLIFp should consider longer screw lengths based on anatomical considerations.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>eLLIFp cages can be used as a stand-alone device in appropriately selected patients. This avoids the morbidity and cost associated with futher supplemental posterior fixation. Surgeons using eLLIFp should consider using longer screws to optimize fixation.</p>","PeriodicalId":49484,"journal":{"name":"Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2025.01.035","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background context: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a minimally invasive surgical technique that provides a wide footprint interbody cage for correction of lumbar coronal and sagittal deformity. Traditional spinal interbody fusion procedures utilize pedicle screws and rods for additional stability. An expandable lateral titanium interbody cage with an integrated lateral fixation (eLLIFp) device provides a stand-alone LLIF that is intended to function autonomously. This may reduce the complexity of the surgery and the potential risks associated with supplemental posterior instrumentation. The minimum-acceptable screw length to promote adequate biomechanical fixation and stability for a stand-alone eLLIFp has not been determined.

Purpose: To investigate the effective ratio (of screw length/cage length) of a stand-alone eLLIFp construct that provides adequate biomechanical fixation and stability as compared to the eLLIFp with supplemental bilateral pedicle screw-rod fixation.

Study design/setting: In vitro cadaveric biomechanical testing and finite element modeling.

Patient sample: Eight fresh-frozen human cadaveric lumbar spine specimens (L2-5) were used.

Outcome measures: Range-of-motion (ROM) measurements of intact and treated specimens with simulated stresses within the construct and surrounding bone during flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR).

Methods: Specimens with similar age and DEXA scores were selected. ROM of intact specimens was measured before treatment with LLIF at L3-4. Specimens were treated with expandable lateral cages with integrated fixation (stand-alone eLLIFp) or eLLIFp with supplemental posterior fixation using bilateral pedicle screws and rods (eLLIFp + BPS). ROM was measured using a custom-built 6-degrees-of-freedom motion simulator (±7.5Nm) and normalized as a percentage of intact. Four patient-specific lumbar functional spinal unit finite element models (FEMs) were developed, validated, and then instrumented with eLLIFp stand-alone devices. The integrated screw lengths were varied to achieve screw-to-cage length ratios of 0.6, 0.75 and 0.9. Stresses were compared among the constructs under a 7.5Nm pure moment load in FE, LB, and AR.

Results: The stand-alone and posteriorly supplemented eLLIFp constructs were not sensitive to the ratio during FE and LB (with only a 4%-9% change in motion trends from low-to-high ratios, relative to intact). Independent of ratio, these constructs had minimal differences in FE and LB motion. However, during AR both constructs were sensitive to the ratio showing greater stability and less variability in performance with higher ratios (≥0.65). Regression analysis revealed that posteriorly supplemented eLLIFp constructs had a linear 13% reduction in AR motion as the ratio increased from low-to-high (p<.05). AR also imposed the highest stresses on the eLLIFp and these stresses increased with higher ratios (maximum stress 259MPa for ratio 0.9 during AR), yet implant failure was improbable because of the material properties of the titanium alloy used. Similarly, surrounding bone stresses were higher during AR and longer screws reduced these stresses (63MPa with a 0.6 ratio compared to 38MPa with a 0.9 ratio).

Conclusions: Independent of screw-to-cage length ratio, eLLIFp had comparable reduction of FE and LB motion with or without posterior fixation. For eLLIFp with and without posterior fixation, torsional performance and repeatability increased with screw-to-cage length ratio. Torsional stability was comparable between stand-alone eLLIFp with high ratios (≥0.65) and posteriorly supplemented eLLIFp with low ratios (0.55). However, a threshold screw-to-cage length ratio for optimizing the clinical performance of eLLIFp cannot be prescribed. Implant stress findings reinforced torsion as the critical loading condition. Surrounding bone stress decreased as the screw length increased, indicating the benefit of using longer screws. Surgeons using eLLIFp should consider longer screw lengths based on anatomical considerations.

Clinical significance: eLLIFp cages can be used as a stand-alone device in appropriately selected patients. This avoids the morbidity and cost associated with futher supplemental posterior fixation. Surgeons using eLLIFp should consider using longer screws to optimize fixation.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Spine Journal
Spine Journal 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
680
审稿时长
13.1 weeks
期刊介绍: The Spine Journal, the official journal of the North American Spine Society, is an international and multidisciplinary journal that publishes original, peer-reviewed articles on research and treatment related to the spine and spine care, including basic science and clinical investigations. It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to The Spine Journal have not been published, and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. The Spine Journal also publishes major reviews of specific topics by acknowledged authorities, technical notes, teaching editorials, and other special features, Letters to the Editor-in-Chief are encouraged.
×
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