Comprehensive biomechanical analysis of three reconstruction techniques following total sacrectomy: an in vitro human cadaveric model

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

11-1-2017

Publication Title

Journal of neurosurgery. Spine

Keywords

Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Biomechanical Phenomena, Cadaver, Female, Humans, Ilium, Internal Fixators, Lumbar Vertebrae, Male, Middle Aged, Orthopedic Procedures, Range of Motion, Articular, Reconstructive Surgical Procedures, Sacrum

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Aggressive sacral tumors often require en bloc resection and lumbopelvic reconstruction. Instrumentation failure and pseudarthrosis remain a clinical concern to be addressed. The objective in this study was to compare the biomechanical stability of 3 distinct techniques for sacral reconstruction in vitro. METHODS In a human cadaveric model study, 8 intact human lumbopelvic specimens (L2-pelvis) were tested for flexion-extension range of motion (ROM), lateral bending, and axial rotation with a custom-designed 6-df spine simulator as well as axial compression stiffness with the MTS 858 Bionix Test System. Biomechanical testing followed this sequence: 1) intact spine; 2) sacrectomy (no testing); 3) Model 1 (L3-5 transpedicular instrumentation plus spinal rods anchored to iliac screws); 4) Model 2 (addition of transiliac rod); and 5) Model 3 (removal of transiliac rod; addition of 2 spinal rods and 2 S-2 screws). Range of motion was measured at L4-5, L5-S1/cross-link, L5-right ilium, and L5-left ilium. RESULTS Flexion-extension ROM of the intact specimen at L4-5 (6.34° ± 2.57°) was significantly greater than in Model 1 (1.54° ± 0.94°), Model 2 (1.51° ± 1.01°), and Model 3 (0.72° ± 0.62°) (p < 0.001). Flexion-extension at both the L5-right ilium (2.95° ± 1.27°) and the L5-left ilium (2.87° ± 1.40°) for Model 3 was significantly less than the other 3 cohorts at the same level (p = 0.005 and p = 0.012, respectively). Compared with the intact condition, all 3 reconstruction groups statistically significantly decreased lateral bending ROM at all measured points. Axial rotation ROM at L4-5 for Model 1 (2.01° ± 1.39°), Model 2 (2.00° ± 1.52°), and Model 3 (1.15° ± 0.80°) was significantly lower than the intact condition (5.02° ± 2.90°) (p < 0.001). Moreover, axial rotation for the intact condition and Model 3 at L5-right ilium (2.64° ± 1.36° and 2.93° ± 1.68°, respectively) and L5-left ilium (2.58° ± 1.43° and 2.93° ± 1.71°, respectively) was significantly lower than for Model 1 and Model 2 at L5-right ilium (5.14° ± 2.48° and 4.95° ± 2.45°, respectively) (p = 0.036) and L5-left ilium (5.19° ± 2.34° and 4.99° ± 2.31°) (p = 0.022). Last, results of the axial compression testing at all measured points were not statistically different among reconstructions. CONCLUSIONS The addition of a transverse bar in Model 2 offered no biomechanical advantage. Although the implementation of 4 iliac screws and 4 rods conferred a definitive kinematic advantage in Model 3, that model was associated with significantly restricted lumbopelvic ROM.

Medical Subject Headings

Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Biomechanical Phenomena; Cadaver; Female; Humans; Ilium; Internal Fixators; Lumbar Vertebrae; Male; Middle Aged; Orthopedic Procedures; Range of Motion, Articular; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures; Sacrum

PubMed ID

28777063

Volume

27

Issue

5

First Page

570

Last Page

577

Find It @ Sladen

Share

COinS