• Woojin Cho, Wenhai Wang, and Brandon Bucklen.
• Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center, 3400 Bainbridge Ave, 6th Fl., Bronx, NY, 10461, USA.
• Spine Deform. 2020 Aug 1; 8 (4): 561-568.

Study DesignFinite element analysis.ObjectivesTo biomechanically validate the classification of lumbopelvic fixation failure using an in silico model. Even though major failure of lumbopelvic constructs has occurred more often in patients with suboptimal lumbar lordosis and sagittal balance, there has been no biomechanical validation of this classification.MethodsFinite element models (T10-pelvis) were created to match the average spinal-pelvic parameters of two cohorts of patients reported in Cho et al. (J Neurosurg Spine 19:445-453, 2013): major failure group (defined as rod breakage between L4 and S1, failure of S1 screws and prominence of iliac screws requiring removal) and non-failure group. A moment was applied at the T10 superior endplate to simulate gravimetric loading in a standing position.ResultsDue to differences in the alignment of spinopelvic parameters between normal and failed spines in the presence of a fixed gravity line, the major failure cohort in this study observed a 20% higher load and 18% greater instability. As a result, the rod and screw stress in the major failure cohort increased by 20% and 42%, respectively, in comparison to the non-failure cohort.ConclusionsThe greater mechanical demand on the posterior rods in the lower lumbar spine in the major failure cohort further emphasizes the importance of proper sagittal alignment. This finite element analysis validates the classification of lumbopelvic fixation failure.

22 keywords...

hide…