Radiographic Evaluation of Monocortical Versus Tricortical Purchase Approaches in Lumbosacral Fixation With Sacral Pedicle Screws: A Prospective Study of Ninety Consecutive Patients

Study Design. Prospective radiographic outcome analysis. Objective. Radiographic evaluation of the rigidity of monocortical and tricortical purchase in lumbosacral fixation. Summary of Background Data. The lumbosacral junction continues to be a difficult region to obtain a successful spinal arthrodesis and is one of the primary regions for construct failure. In inserting sacral screws, 3 types of purchase are known: monocortical, bicortical, and tricortical. Among them no clinical or basic studies have compared monocortical with tricortical purchase. Methods. Ninety consecutive patients diagnosed with spondylolisthesis who underwent lumbosacral fixation were evaluated. Fifty-three patients were treated with a monocortical approach and the other 37 patients were treated with a tricortical approach. Patients underwent surgery for posterolateral fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) according to their diagnosis. Their radiologic findings, radiolucent zones around sacral screws, and lumbosacral instability of more than 2° flexion just after the surgery and 1 year later were compared. The angulation and length of the inserted screw were also measured and evaluated. Results. There were no significances in the distributions of gender, average age, proportion of fixation method, and fusion range between the monocortical and tricortical groups (P > 0.05). Radiolucent zones and lumbosacral instability were more prevalent in the monocortical group than were in the tricortical group. Smaller angulation also affected the outcome in the monocortical group while screw length did not. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of possible risk factors revealed that female gender (odds ratio [OR]: 3.56, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18–10.8), TLIF operative method (OR: 5.54, 95% CI: 1.08–8.2), number of fusion levels (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.05–3.18), and monocortical purchase (OR: 7.11, 95% CI: 1.58–31.9) were statistically significant. Conclusion. More loosening of sacral screws was radiographically observed in the monocortical purchase group than in the tricortical group 1 year after the lumbosacral fixation surgery. A statistical analysis indicated that the tricortical approach should be used for patients undergoing multilevel fusion including lumbosacral junction by TLIF.

[1]  Sait Naderi,et al.  The human sacrum and safe approaches for screw placement , 2009, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.

[2]  A. Kiray,et al.  Neurovascular risks of sacral screws with bicortical purchase: an anatomical study , 2007, European Spine Journal.

[3]  K. Luk,et al.  A Stronger Bicortical Sacral Pedicle Screw Fixation Through The S1 Endplate: An In Vitro Cyclic Loading and Pull-Out Force Evaluation , 2005, Spine.

[4]  S. Ohtori,et al.  Insertional torque of the lumbar pedicle screw during surgery , 2005, Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association.

[5]  B. Sandén,et al.  The significance of radiolucent zones surrounding pedicle screws. Definition of screw loosening in spinal instrumentation. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[6]  S. Siegler,et al.  Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: The Effect of Various Instrumentation Techniques on the Flexibility of the Lumbar Spine , 2004, Spine.

[7]  S. Ondra,et al.  Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Surgical Technique and Results in 24 Patients , 2004, Neurosurgery.

[8]  A. Kavaklı,et al.  [Radiologic and morphologic evaluation of the lateral sacral mass]. , 2003, Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica.

[9]  R. Andersen,et al.  Advantage of Pedicle Screw Fixation Directed Into the Apex of the Sacral Promontory Over Bicortical Fixation: A Biomechanical Analysis , 2002, Spine.

[10]  V. Deviren,et al.  Outcome and Complications of Long Fusions to the Sacrum in Adult Spine Deformity: Luque-Galveston, Combined Iliac and Sacral Screws, and Sacral Fixation , 2002, Spine.

[11]  K. Luk,et al.  Loosening of sacral screw fixation under in vitro fatigue loading , 2000, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[12]  K. Okuyama,et al.  Can insertional torque predict screw loosening and related failures? An in vivo study of pedicle screw fixation augmenting posterior lumbar interbody fusion. , 2000, Spine.

[13]  L. Kirsch,et al.  The stability of bone screws in the os sacrum , 1998, European Spine Journal.

[14]  A. Valdevit,et al.  Biomechanical Testing of the Lumbosacral Spine , 1998, Spine.

[15]  J. Lotz,et al.  Biomechanical Analysis of Lumbosacral Fixation , 1996, Spine.

[16]  A. Tencer,et al.  Caudo-cephalad loading of pedicle screws: mechanisms of loosening and methods of augmentation. , 1993, Spine.

[17]  W. Rauschning,et al.  Surgical Anatomy of the Sacrum: A Guide for Rational Screw Fixation , 1991, Spine.

[18]  J. Massie,et al.  Anatomic Consideration for Sacral Screw Placement , 1991, Spine.

[19]  M. Krag Biomechanics of Thoracolumbar Spinal Fixation: A Review , 1991, Spine.

[20]  B. T. Field,et al.  A biomechanical study of intrapeduncular screw fixation in the lumbosacral spine. , 1986, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[21]  R Roy-Camille,et al.  Internal fixation of the lumbar spine with pedicle screw plating. , 1986, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.