• PereiraBernardo de AndradaBASpinal Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ., Jakub Godzik, Jennifer N Lehrman, SawaAnna G UAGUSpinal Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ., Randall J Hlubek, Juan S Uribe, Brian P Kelly, and Jay D Turner.
• Spinal Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ.
• Spine. 2022 Apr 15; 47 (8): 640-647.

Study DesignFourteen cadaveric specimens were separated into two groups: (1) L3 pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or (2) lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). A 2-rod configuration (2R) was compared with two supplemental rod configurations: 4-rod (4R) with accessory rods (ARs) using connectors or 4R with satellite rods (SRs) without connectors.ObjectiveCompare PSO constructs with different rod configurations and adjacent-level interbody support.Summary Of Background DataSupplemental rods and anterior column support enhance biomechanical performance.MethodsPure moments were applied in (1) intact, (2) pedicle screws and rods, (3) PSO + 2R, (4) 4R AR, and (5) 4R SR conditions. Primary and supplemental rods had strain gauges across the index level. Sacral screw bending moments and range of motion (ROM) were recorded.ResultsFor TLIF, AR decreased ROM during flexion (P = 0.02) and extension (P < 0.001) versus 2R. For LLIF, AR and SR decreased motion versus 2R during left (AR: P  = 0.03; SR: P  = 0.04) and right (AR: P  = 0.002; SR: P  = 0.01) axial rotation. For LLIF, sacral screw strain increased with SR compared with AR in compression and right lateral bending (P ≤ 0.03). During lateral bending, rod strain increased with PSO+TLIF+SR versus PSO+LLIF+2R and PSO+LLIF+AR (P ≤ 0.02). For LLIF, SR configuration increased rod strain versus AR during flexion, extension, and lateral bending (P≤ 0.01); for TLIF, rod strain increased with SR versus AR during extension (P = 0.03). For LLIF, AR configuration increased posterior supplemental rod strain versus SR during flexion (P = 0.02) and lateral bending (P < 0.001).ConclusionBoth supplemental rod configurations reduced motion in both groups. Constructs with the SR configuration increased the primary rod strain and the sacral screw bending moment compared with AR constructs, which can share strain. Deep-seated SRs, which have become increasingly popular, may be more vulnerable to failure than ARs. LLIF provided more stability in sagittal plane. Protective effect of supplemental rods on rod strain was more effective with TLIF.Level of Evidence: NA.Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

16 keywords...

hide…