The Strain at Bone-Implant Interface Determines the Effect of Spinopelvic Reconstruction following Total Sacrectomy: A Strain Gauge Analysis in Various Spinopelvic Constructs

Purpose There is still some controversy regarding the optimal biomechanical concept for spinopelvic stabilization following total sacrectomy for malignancy. Strains at specific anatomical sites at pelvis/sacrum and implants interfaces have been poorly investigated. Herein, we compared and analyzed the strains applied at key points at the bone-implant interface in four different spinopelvic constructs following total sacrectomy; consequently, we defined a balanced architecture for spinopelvic fusion in that situation. Methods Six human cadaveric specimens, from second lumbar vertebra to proximal femur, were used to compare the partial strains at specific sites in a total sacrectomy model. Test constructs included: (1) intact pelvis (control), (2) sacral-rod reconstruction (SRR), (3) bilateral fibular flap reconstruction (BFFR), (4) four-rods reconstruction (FRR), and (5) improved compound reconstruction (ICR). Strains were measured by bonded strain gauges onto the surface of three specific sites (pubic rami, arcuate lines, and posterior spinal rods) under a 500 N axial load. Results ICR caused lower strains at specific sites and, moreover, on stress distribution and symmetry, compared to the other three constructs. Strains at pubic rami and arcuate lines following BFFR were lower than those following SRR, but higher at the posterior spinal rod construct. The different modes of strain distribution reflected different patient’s parameter-related conditions. FRR model showed the highest strains at all sites because of the lack of an anterior bracing frame. Conclusions The findings of this investigation suggest that both anterior bracing frame and the four-rods load dispersion provide significant load sharing. Additionally, these two constructs decrease the peak strains at bone-implant interface, thus determining the theoretical surgical technique to achieve optimal stress dispersion and balance for spinopelvic reconstruction in early postoperative period following total sacrectomy.

[1]  Juhachi Oda,et al.  Biomechanical evaluation of reconstructed lumbosacral spine after total sacrectomy , 2002, Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association.

[2]  F. Shen,et al.  A Novel “Four-Rod Technique” for Lumbo-Pelvic Reconstruction: Theory and Technical Considerations , 2006, Spine.

[3]  A. Dickinson,et al.  Experimental validation of numerically predicted strain and micromotion in intact and implanted composite hemi-pelvises , 2013, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[4]  Juhachi Oda,et al.  Reconstruction After Total Sacrectomy Using a New Instrumentation Technique: A Biomechanical Comparison , 2003, Spine.

[5]  Z. Gokaslan,et al.  Total sacrectomy and Galveston L-rod reconstruction for malignant neoplasms. Technical note. , 1997, Journal of neurosurgery.

[6]  J. Harrelson,et al.  Long-term survival following total sacrectomy with reconstruction for the treatment of primary osteosarcoma of the sacrum. A case report. , 1999, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[7]  A. Rohlmann,et al.  Comparison of four reconstruction methods after total sacrectomy: a finite element study. , 2012, Clinical biomechanics.

[8]  F. Shen,et al.  Biomechanical Testing of a Novel Four-Rod Technique For Lumbo-Pelvic Reconstruction , 2008, Spine.

[9]  Michael J Yaszemski,et al.  Mechanical Effects of Partial Sacrectomy: When Is Reconstruction Necessary? , 2006, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[10]  Ze-min Li,et al.  Biomechanical advantages of dual over single iliac screws in lumbo-iliac fixation construct , 2010, European Spine Journal.

[11]  L. Lenke,et al.  Comparison of Pelvic Fixation Techniques in Neuromuscular Spinal Deformity Correction: Galveston Rod Versus Iliac and Lumbosacral Screws , 2006, Spine.

[12]  L. Riley,et al.  Pelvic fixation in spine surgery. Historical overview, indications, biomechanical relevance, and current techniques. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[13]  Yang Liu,et al.  Finite element analysis of the pelvis after modular hemipelvic endoprosthesis reconstruction , 2013, International Orthopaedics.

[14]  G. Elfström,et al.  Intravital dynamic pressure measurements in lumbar discs. A study of common movements, maneuvers and exercises. , 1970, Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine. Supplement.

[15]  Kevin A. Thomas,et al.  Analysis of the STIF Technique for Spino-Pelvic Fixation: Clinical Results in 19 Patients with Neuromuscular Scoliosis , 2000, Journal of pediatric orthopedics.

[16]  A. Nachemson,et al.  Intravital dynamic pressure measurements in lumber discs , 1970 .

[17]  Ze-min Li,et al.  Biomechanical effects of the extent of sacrectomy on the stability of lumbo-iliac reconstruction using iliac screw techniques: What level of sacrectomy requires the bilateral dual iliac screw technique? , 2010, Clinical biomechanics.

[18]  Liming Cheng,et al.  Structural stability of different reconstruction techniques following total sacrectomy: a biomechanical study. , 2011, Clinical biomechanics.

[19]  Total sacrectomy and Galveston L-rod reconstruction for malignant neoplasms. Technical note. , 1997 .

[20]  K. Wood,et al.  Effect of Sacral and Iliac Instrumentation on Strains in the Pelvis: A Biomechanical Study , 1996, Spine.

[21]  Z. Gokaslan,et al.  Spinal-pelvic fixation in patients with lumbosacral neoplasms. , 2000, Journal of neurosurgery.

[22]  F. Sim,et al.  Reconstruction after Total Sacrectomy: Early Experience with a New Surgical Technique , 2005, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.