Biomechanical and Fluoroscopic Study of a Continuously Expandable Interbody Spacer Concerning Its Role in Insertion Force and Segmental Kinematics

Study Design In vitro cadaveric study. Purpose To compare biomechanical performance, trial and implant insertion, and disc distraction during implant placement, when two interbody devices, an in situ continuously expandable spacer (CES) and a traditional static spacer (SS), were used for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Overview of Literature Severe degenerative disc diseases necessitate surgical management via large spacers to increase the disc space for implants. Next-generation interbody devices that expand in situ minimize insertion forces, optimize fit between vertebral endplates, and limit nerve root retraction. However, the literature lacks characterization of insertion forces as well as details on other parameters of expandable and static spacers. Methods Ten cadaveric segments (L5–S1) were divided into two groups (n=5) and implanted with either CES or SS. Each specimen experienced unconstrained pure moment of ±6 Nm in flexion–extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation to assess the contribution of CES and SS implants in biomechanical performance. Radiographic analysis was performed during trial and implant insertion to measure distraction during spacer insertion at the posterior, central, and anterior disc regions. Pressure sensors measured the force of trial and implant insertion. Results Biomechanical analysis showed no significant differences between CES and SS in all planes of motion. A total 2.6±0.9 strikes were required for expandable spacer trials insertion and 2.6±0.5 strikes for CES insertion. A total of 8.4±3.8 strikes were required to insert SS trials and 4.2±1.6 strikes for SS insertion. The total force per surgery was 330 N for CES and 635 N for SS. Fluoroscopic analysis revealed a significant reduction in distraction during implant insertion at the posterior and anterior disc regions (CES, 0.58 and 0.14 mm; SS, 1.04 and 0.78 mm, respectively). Conclusions Results from the three study arms reveal the potential use of expandable spacers. During implant insertion, CESs provided similar stability, required less insertion force, and significantly reduced over-distraction of the annulus compared with SS

A novel technique for sacropelvic fixation using image-guided sacroiliac screws: a case series and biomechanical study

In this study, we sought to assess the safety and accuracy of sacropelvic fixation performed with image-guided sacroiliac screw placement using postoperative computed tomography and X-rays. The sacroiliac screws were placed with navigation in five patients. Intact specimens were mounted onto a six-degrees-of-freedom spine motion simulator. Long lumbosacral constructs using bilateral sacroiliac screws and bilateral S1 pedicle and iliac screws were tested in seven cadaveric spines. Nine sacroiliac screws were well-placed under an image guidance system (IGS); one was placed poorly without IGS with no symptoms. Both fixation techniques significantly reduced range of motion (P<0.05) at L5-S1. The research concluded that rigid lumbosacral fixation can be achieved with sacroiliac screws, and image guidance improves its safety and accuracy. This new technique of image-guided sacroiliac screw insertion should prove useful in many types of fusion to the sacrum, particularly for patients with poor bone quality, complicated anatomy, infection, previous failed fusion and iliac harvesting