Position of interbody spacer in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: effect on 3-dimensional stability and sagittal lumbar contour

STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical study. OBJECTIVE: To test 2 different intervertebral positions of a semilunar cage and their effects on 3-dimensional stability and segmental lordosis in a model of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In his original TLIF description, Harms recommended decortication of endplates, followed by placement of mesh cages in the middle-posterior intervertebral third. Subsequent studies presented conflicting recommendations: anterior placement of the spacer-cage for better load-sharing versus placement on the stronger posterolateral endplate regions. METHODS: Six human lumbar spinal functional units were first tested intact. TLIF was performed using a semilunar poly-ether-ether-ketone cage randomly inserted in the anterior (TLIF-A) or posterior (TLIF-P) disc space. Pedicle screws and rods were added. Unconstrained pure moments in axial-torsion, lateral-bending (LB), and flexion-extension (FE) were applied under 0.05 Hz and +/-5 Nm sinusoidal waveform. Segmental motions were recorded. Range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ) were calculated. Pairwise comparisons were made using nonparametric Wilcoxon-matched pairs signed rank sum test with statistical significance set at P0.05). Delta-ROM between TLIF-A and TLIF-P was not significant (P>0.05). TLIF-A and TLIF-P significantly decreased NZ in LB (P0.05). Segmental lordosis of TLIF-A and TLIF-P on C-arm views showed angle differences within the range of measurement error of Cobb angles. CONCLUSIONS: Difference in ROM and NZ between anterior (TLIF-A) or posterior (TLIF-P) positions was not statistically significant. Similarly, both positions did not influence segmental lordosis

Biomechanical comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

STUDY DESIGN: An in vitro biomechanical comparison of 2 fusion techniques, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), on cadaveric human spines. OBJECTIVE: To compare the immediate construct stability, in terms of range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone, of ALIF, including 2 separate approaches, and TLIF procedures with posterior titanium rod fixation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Both ALIF and TLIF have been used to treat chronic low back pain and instability. In many cases, the choice between these 2 techniques is based only on personal preference. No biomechanical performance comparison between these 2 fusion techniques is available to assist surgical decision. METHODS: Twelve cadaveric lumbar motion segments were loaded sinusoidally at 0.05 Hz and 5 Nm in unconstrained axial rotation, lateral bending and flexion extension. Specimens were randomly divided into 2 groups with 6 in each group. One group was assigned for TLIF whereas the other group for ALIF. In the ALIF group, there were 3 steps. First, the lateral ALIF procedure with the anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL) intact was performed. Afterwards, the ALL was cut without removing the ALIF cage. Finally, another appropriately sized ALIF cage was inserted anteriorly. Biomechanical tests were conducted after each step. RESULTS: In the ALIF group, the lateral ALIF and subsequent anterior ALIF reduced segmental motion significantly (P=0.03) under all loading conditions. Removing the ALL increased ROM by 59% and 142% in axial rotation and flexion extension, respectively (P=0.03). The anterior ALIF approach was able to achieve similar biomechanical stability of the lateral approach in lateral bending and flexion extension (P>0.05) under all loading conditions. The TLIF procedure significantly reduced the range of motion compared with the intact state (P=0.03). However, no statistical difference was detected between the TLIF group and the ALIF group (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both ALIF and TLIF procedures combined with posterior instrumentation significantly improved construct stability of intact spinal motion segments. However, there was no statistical difference between these 2 fusion techniques. The 2 ALIF approaches (lateral and anterior) also had similar construct stability even though anterior longitudinal ligament severing significantly reduced stability

Subaxial cervical pedicle screw insertion with newly defined entry point and trajectory: accuracy evaluation in cadavers

Successful placement of cervical pedicle screws requires accurate identification of both entry point and trajectory. However, literature has not provided consistent recommendations regarding the direction of pedicle screw insertion and entry point location. The objective of this study was to define a guideline regarding the optimal entry point and trajectory in placing subaxial cervical pedicle screws and to evaluate the screw accuracy in cadaver cervical spines. The guideline for entry point and trajectory for each vertebra was established based on the recently published morphometric data. Six fresh frozen cervical spines (C3–C7) were used. There were two men and four women. After posterior exposure, the entry point was determined and the cortical bone of the entry point was removed using a 2-mm burr. Pilot holes were created with a cervical probe based on the guideline using fluoroscopy. After tapping, 3.5-mm screws with appropriate length were inserted. After screw insertion, every vertebra was dissected and inspected for pedicle breach. The pedicle width, height, pedicle transverse angulation and actual screw insertion angle were measured. A total of 60 pedicle screws were inserted. No statistical difference in pedicle width and height was found between the left and right sides for each level. The overall accuracy of pedicle screws was 83.3%. The remaining 13.3% screws had noncritical breach, and 3.3% had critical breach. The critical breach was not caused by the guideline. There was no statistical difference between the pedicle transverse angulation and the actual screw trajectory created using the guideline. There was statistical difference in pedicle width between the breach and non-breach screws. In conclusion, high success rate of subaxial cervical pedicle screw placement can be achieved using the recently proposed operative guideline and oblique views of fluoroscopy. However, careful preoperative planning and good surgical skills are still required to ensure screw placement accuracy and to reduce the risk of neural and vascular injury

Alignment of pedicle screws with pilot holes: can tapping improve screw trajectory in thoracic spines?

Pedicle screws are placed using pilot holes. The trajectory of pilot holes can be verified by pedicle sounding or radiographs. However, a pilot hole alone does not insure that the screw will follow the pilot hole. No studies have characterized the risk of misalignment of a pedicle screw with respect to its pilot hole trajectory. The objective of this study was to measure the misalignment angles between pedicle screws and pilot holes with or without tapping. Six human cadaveric thoracic spines were used. One hundred and forty pilot holes were created with a straight probe. Steel wires were temporarily inserted and their positions were recorded with CT scans. The left pedicles were tapped with 4.5 mm fluted tap and the right pedicles remained untapped. Pedicle screws (5.5 mm) were inserted into the tapped and untapped pedicles followed by CT scans. The trajectories of pilot holes and screws were calculated using three-dimensional vector analysis. A total of 133 pilot holes (95%) were inside pedicles. For the untapped side, 14 out of 68 (20%) screws did not follow the pilot holes and were outside the pedicles. For the tapped side, 2 out of 65 (3%) did not follow and breached the pedicles. The average misalignment angles between the screw and pilot hole trajectory were 7.7° ± 6.5° and 5.6° ± 3.2° for the untapped side and tapped side, respectively (P < 0.05). Most pedicle screws had lateral screw breach (13 out of 16) whereas most pilot holes had medial pedicle breach (6 out of 7). Tapping of pilot holes (1 mm undertap) helps align pedicle screws and reduces the risk of screw malposition. Although most pedicle screws had lateral breach, the risk of medial pedicle breach of the pilot holes must be recognized