Biomechanical Analysis of Osteotomy Type and Rod Diameter for Treatment of Cervicothoracic Kyphosis

Study Design. Biomechanical laboratory research. Objective. To characterize the structural stiffness of opening and closing wedge osteotomies and the independent effect of rod diameter. Summary of Background Data. Traditionally, C7 opening wedge osteotomy (OWO) has been performed for patients with ankylosing spondylitis. For patients without ankylosing spondylitis, closing wedge osteotomy (CWO) may be considered for more controlled closure. Biomechanical characteristics of the two osteotomy alternatives have not yet been analyzed. Methods. Nondestructive pure moment flexion/extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) tests were conducted to 4.5 Nm on cadaveric specimens (C4–T3). All specimens underwent posterior bilateral screw-rod fixation with 3.5 mm and 4.5 mm Ti rods, whereas half received OWO and half received CWO. Results. Independent of osteotomy type, constructs with 4.5 mm rods exhibited a significant increase in stiffness compared to 3.5 mm rods in all bending modes (P < 0.01). Relative to 3.5 mm rods, 4.5 mm constructs showed an increase in stiffness of 31 ± 12% for FE, 37 ± 39% for LB, and 31 ± 11% for AR. At the osteotomy site, there was a 43 ± 23% increase in FE stiffness, 45 ± 36% in LB, and 41 ± 17% in AR. Independent of rod diameter, CWO was significantly stiffer than OWO (42% for the construct and 56% across the osteotomy) in FE bending only (P < 0.05). Conclusion. The surgeon can expect a similar increase in stiffness in switching from 3.5 mm to 4.5 mm rod independent of osteotomy type. The increased stiffness of CWOs has an anatomic basis. OWOs disrupt the anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL) and leave a significant anterior gap whereas CWOs create a wedge through the vertebral body and leave the ALL and the discs above and below the osteotomy intact. The closure in CWOs leaves no anterior gap providing greater axial loading stability. This greater bone on bone contact in CWOs is likely a significant reason for the anterior stiffness and may provide greater fusion rates in the nonankylosing spondylitis patient population.

[1]  Johnny Eguizabal,et al.  Pure moment testing for spinal biomechanics applications: Fixed versus sliding ring cable-driven test designs. , 2010, Journal of biomechanics.

[2]  Justin K Scheer,et al.  Optimal reconstruction technique after C-2 corpectomy and spondylectomy: a biomechanical analysis. , 2010, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[3]  MULTISEGMENTAL SPINAL BIOMECHANICAL TESTING USING A NOVEL 3-D SLIDING RING PURE MOMENT APPARATUS , 2009 .

[4]  Kai-Ming G. Fu,et al.  Surgical management of global sagittal deformity in ankylosing spondylitis. , 2008, Neurosurgical focus.

[5]  Michael Y. Wang,et al.  Management of cervical deformity in ankylosing spondylitis. , 2008, Neurosurgical focus.

[6]  K. Lam,et al.  C7 decancellisation closing wedge osteotomy for the correction of fixed cervico-thoracic kyphosis , 2007, European Spine Journal.

[7]  E. Simmons,et al.  Thirty-Six Years Experience of Cervical Extension Osteotomy in Ankylosing Spondylitis: Techniques and Outcomes , 2006, Spine.

[8]  H. Bohlman,et al.  Cervicothoracic extension osteotomy for chin-on-chest deformity in ankylosing spondylitis. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[9]  Ying-Yu Chen,et al.  Closing Wedge Osteotomy Versus Opening Wedge Osteotomy in Ankylosing Spondylitis With Thoracolumbar Kyphotic Deformity , 2005, Spine.

[10]  N. Crawford,et al.  Biomechanics of Stabilization After Cervicothoracic Compression-Flexion Injury , 2005, Spine.

[11]  C J Snijders,et al.  Relationship between everyday activities and spinal shrinkage. , 2005, Clinical biomechanics.

[12]  N. Crawford,et al.  Biomechanical Analysis of Rigid Stabilization Techniques for Three-Column Injury in the Lower Cervical Spine , 2005, Spine.

[13]  C. Shaffrey,et al.  Management of iatrogenic flat-back syndrome. , 2003, Neurosurgical focus.

[14]  A. Gast,et al.  Lumbar osteotomy for correction of thoracolumbar kyphotic deformity in ankylosing spondylitis. A structured review of three methods of treatment , 1999 .

[15]  A. Patwardhan,et al.  A follower load increases the load-carrying capacity of the lumbar spine in compression. , 1999, Spine.

[16]  N. Crawford,et al.  Construction of Local Vertebral Coordinate Systems Using a Digitizing Probe: Technical Note , 1997, Spine.

[17]  M. Mcmaster.  Osteotomy of the cervical spine in ankylosing spondylitis. , 1997, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[18]  E. Koeneman,et al.  An Apparatus for Applying Pure Nonconstraining Moments to Spine Segments In Vitro , 1995, Spine.

[19]  M. Adams,et al.  Mechanical testing of the spine. An appraisal of methodology, results, and conclusions. , 1995, Spine.

[20]  M. Panjabi,et al.  Biomechanical Analysis of Experimental Spinal Cord Injury and Functional Loss , 1988, Spine.

[21]  Manohar M. Panjabi,et al.  Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine , 1978 .