Study Design. Human cadavera morphometric analysis of the iliac columns and biomechanical implant testing of traditional Galveston technique compared to intrailiac instrumentation of the entire iliac column. Objectives. To describe the anatomy of the iliac columns and to evaluate the strength in forward flexion of a large implant spanning the entire column length compared to standard Galveston technique. Summary of Background Data. We have observed substantial and straight columns of bone in the pelvis, connecting the acetabula to the sacrum, which may allow for improved spinopelvic instrumentation. Methods. Twenty adult cadaveric pelves were used. Each specimen was oriented in the computed tomography scanner to obtain a cross-section of the iliac columns, which begin from 2 cm caudal to the posterior iliac spines and end above the acetabula at the anterior inferior iliac spines. Two different instrumentation techniques were used. Standard Galveston pelvic fixation with paired 6.25-mm diameter rods extending 8 cm into the pelvis (Group 1) was compared to paired 8-mm diameter, 15-cm long custom implants, placed within the length of the entire iliac columns and connected to 6.25-mm spinal rods (Group 2). Both constructs had two rigid cross-links connecting the rods. Testing in forward flexion was performed for each construct with the MTS model 881 at 5 N/sec until failure occurred. Results. The rectangular shaped iliac columns averaged 15.2 (SD 0.8) cm in length, 2.5 (SD 0.3) cm in width and were consistently straight. The iliac column orientation as viewed in the transverse plane was 22° laterally directed from the midsagittal plane. For the Galveston technique, failure with a flexion force occurred at a mean of 682 (SD 217) N. The iliac column implants failed at a mean of 2153 (SD 1370) N (P < 0.004). Conclusion. The human adult pelvis has substantial and straight columns of bone extending from 2 cm below the posterior iliac spine, traversing above the sciatic notch, and ending at the anterior iliac spine. The shape resembles a weight-bearing long bone such as the tibia. Analogous to the architectural pylon, in this cadaver model, large implant instrumentation of the entire length of these pelvic columns provides at least three times stronger anchorage for spinal instrumentation compared to standard Galveston technique.
[1]
M. Abel,et al.
Posterior-Only Unit Rod Instrumentation and Fusion for Neuromuscular Scoliosis
,
2001,
Spine.
[2]
Tait S. Smith,et al.
S1 Screw Bending Moment With Posterior Spinal Instrumentation Across the Lumbosacral Junction After Unilateral Iliac Crest Harvest
,
2001,
Spine.
[3]
J. Berry,et al.
Morphometry of the Supra Sciatic Notch Intrailiac Implant Anchor Passage
,
2001,
Spine.
[4]
R. Schwend,et al.
Accuracy of fluoroscopically assisted laser targeting of the cadaveric thoracic and lumbar spine to place transpedicular screws.
,
2000,
Journal of spinal disorders.
[5]
V. Goel,et al.
Biomechanical testing sequelae relevant to spinal fusion and instrumentation.
,
1998,
The Orthopedic clinics of North America.
[6]
K. Wood,et al.
Effect of Sacral and Iliac Instrumentation on Strains in the Pelvis: A Biomechanical Study
,
1996,
Spine.
[7]
B. Cunningham,et al.
Biomechanical Analysis of Lumbosacral Fixation
,
1992,
Spine.
[8]
J. Camp,et al.
Immediate Complications of Cotrel‐Dubousset Instrumentation to the Sacro‐Pelvis A Clinical and Biomechanical Study
,
1990,
Spine.
[9]
R. Jacobs,et al.
Internal fixation in lumbosacral spine fusion. A biomechanical and clinical study.
,
1986,
Clinical orthopaedics and related research.
[10]
B. Allen,et al.
The Galveston Technique of Pelvic Fixation with L-Rod Instrumentation of the Spine
,
1984,
Spine.