Biomechanical Assessment of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With an Anterior Lumbosacral Fixation Screw-Plate: Comparison to Stand-Alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Pedicle Screws in an Unstable Human Cadaver Model

Study Design. Human lumbosacral cadaveric specimens were tested in an in vitro biomechanical flexibility experiment using physiologic loads in 5 sequential conditions. Objective. To determine the biomechanical differences between anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) using cylindrical threaded cages alone or supplemented with an anterior screw-plate or posterior pedicle screws-rods. Summary of Background Data. Clinically and biomechanically, stand-alone ALIF performs modestly in immobilizing the unstable spine. Pedicle screws improve fixation stiffness significantly, but supplementary anterior instrumentation has not been studied. Methods. There were 7 specimens tested: (1) intact, (2) after discectomy and facetectomy to induce moderate rotational and translational hypermobility, (3) with 2 parallel ALIF cages, (4) with cages plus a triangular anterior screw-plate, and (5) with cages plus pedicle screws-rods. Pure moments without preload induced flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation; linear shear forces induced anteroposterior translation. Angular and linear motions were measured stereophotogrammetrically, and range of motion (ROM) and stiffness were quantified. Results. Compared to the destabilized spine, interbody cages alone reduced ROM by 77% during flexion, 53% during extension, 60% during lateral bending, 69% during axial rotation, and 71% during anteroposterior shear (P < 0.001, analysis of variance/Fisher least significant difference). Addition of an anterior plate or pedicle screws-rods, respectively, further reduced ROM by 8% or 13% during flexion (P = 0.21), 21% or 28% during extension (P = 0.15), 5% or 25% during lateral bending (P = 0.04), 11% or 18% during axial rotation (P = 0.13), and 18% or 18% during anteroposterior shear (P = 0.17). Compared to stand-alone ALIF, both the anterior screw-plate and pedicle screw-rod fixation reduced vertebral ROM to less than 1.2° of rotation and less than 0.1 mm of translation. Conclusions. The anterior screw-plate and pedicle screws-rods both substantially reduced ROM and increased stiffness compared to stand-alone interbody cages. There was no significant difference in the amount by which the supplementary fixation devices limited flexion, extension, axial rotation, or anteroposterior shear; pedicle screws-rods better restricted lateral bending.

[1]  D. Kunz,et al.  A biomechanical comparison evaluating the use of intermediate screws and cross-linkage in lumbar pedicle fixation. , 1994, Journal of spinal disorders.

[2]  S. Blumenthal,et al.  Intervertebral cages for degenerative spinal diseases. , 2003, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[3]  T. Zdeblick,et al.  Interbody Cage Devices , 2003, Spine.

[4]  M. Panjabi,et al.  Biomechanical time‐tolerance of fresh cadaveric human spine specimens , 1985, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[5]  K. Bachus,et al.  Anterior Thoracolumbar Instrumentation: Stiffness and Load Sharing Characteristics of Plate and Rod Systems , 2003, Spine.

[6]  N. Crawford,et al.  Biomechanical Comparison of Anterolateral Plate, Lateral Plate, and Pedicle Screws-Rods for Enhancing Anterolateral Lumbar Interbody Cage Stabilization , 2004, Spine.

[7]  Y. Yun,et al.  Posterior pedicular screw instrumentation and anterior interbody fusion in adult lumbar spondylolysis or grade I spondylolisthesis with segmental instability. , 1996, Journal of spinal disorders.

[8]  V K Goel,et al.  In vitro biomechanical analysis of three anterior thoracolumbar implants. , 2000, Journal of neurosurgery.

[9]  Biomechanical Comparison of Anterior Versus Posterior Lumbar Threaded Interbody Fusion Cages , 2005, Spine.

[10]  Se D At Ça G L I,et al.  Biomechanics of Grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis . Part 2 : Treatment with threaded interbody cages / dowels and pedicle screws , 2001 .

[11]  Sara B. Taylor,et al.  Biomechanical comparison of facet-sparing laminectomy and Christmas tree laminectomy. , 2003, Journal of neurosurgery.

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

[13]  M M Panjabi,et al.  Biomechanical Evaluation of Spinal Fixation Devices: I. A Conceptual Framework , 1988, Spine.

[14]  M. Aebi,et al.  Biomechanical stability of five stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion constructs , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[15]  Avinash G Patwardhan,et al.  Effect of Supplemental Translaminar Facet Screw Fixation on the Stability of Stand-Alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages Under Physiologic Compressive Preloads , 2004, Spine.

[16]  S. Lim,et al.  Minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis. , 2004, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[17]  G. Yamaguchi,et al.  A new technique for determining 3-D joint angles: the tilt/twist method. , 1999, Clinical biomechanics.

[18]  L. Nolte,et al.  The role of supplemental translaminar screws in anterior lumbar interbody fixation: a biomechanical study , 1998, European Spine Journal.

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

[20]  E. Dawson,et al.  A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using a Titanium Cylindrical Threaded Fusion Device , 2004, Spine.

[21]  T. Lund,et al.  Biomechanics of stand-alone cages and cages in combination with posterior fixation: a literature review , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[22]  À. Rovira,et al.  Magnetic resonance anatomic study of iliocava junction and left iliac vein positions related to L5-S1 disc. , 2000, Spine.

[23]  L. Nolte,et al.  Interbody cage stabilisation in the lumbar spine: biomechanical evaluation of cage design, posterior instrumentation and bone density. , 1998, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[24]  Tony S Keller,et al.  Force-deformation response of the lumbar spine: a sagittal plane model of posteroanterior manipulation and mobilization. , 2002, Clinical biomechanics.