• Fintan J Shannon, Gene R DiResta, Danielle Ottaviano, Andrew Castro, John H Healey, and Patrick J Boland.
• Department of Surgery, Orthopaedic Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA. fjshannon@eircom.net.
• Spine. 2004 Oct 1; 29 (19): 20962096-12.

Study DesignThree reconstruction options were evaluated biomechanically following total spondylectomy using human cadaveric spine specimens. OBJECTIVES.: To evaluate and compare the stability of combined anterior and posterior fixation incorporating poly-methyl-methacrylate with alternative accepted reconstruction techniques.Summary Of Background DataTotal spondylectomy represents the most radical option for decompression in metastatic spinal cord compression. Poly-methyl-methacrylate is considered a useful adjunct in spinal column stabilization and arthrodesis; however, there is little published biomechanical data to support its use in this setting.MethodsTen fresh-frozen human cadaveric spines (T9-L3) were used. After intact analysis, a total spondylectomy was performed at T12. Three potential reconstruction techniques were tested for their ability to restore stiffness to the specimen: 1) multilevel posterior pedicle screw instrumentation from T10-L2; 2) anterior instrumentation (ATL Z plate II) and rib graft at T11-L1 with multilevel posterior pedicle screw instrumentation from T10-L2; and 3) anterior cement (Simplex P) and pins construct (T12) with multilevel posterior pedicle screw instrumentation from T10-L2. Each of the three potential reconstruction techniques was tested on each specimen in random order using nondestructive testing under load control.ResultsOnly combined stabilization techniques (e.g., anterior instrumentation and rib graft with multilevel posterior pedicle screw instrumentation and anterior cement-and-pins construct with multilevel posterior pedicle screw instrumentation) restored stiffness to a level equivalent to or higher than that of the intact spine in all loading modes (P < 0.05). Anterior cement-and-pins construct with multilevel posterior pedicle screw instrumentation provided more stability to the specimen than anterior instrumentation and rib graft with multilevel posterior pedicle screw instrumentation in compression and flexion testing (P < 0.05). Posterior instrumentation alone did not restore stiffness to the intact level in compression and flexion testing (P < 0.005).ConclusionsCombined anterior and posterior reconstruction using a cement construct provides equal to or more stability than the intact spine in all testing modes. Posterior stabilization alone is an inferior method of reconstruction following total spondylectomy. Poly-methyl-methacrylate has the advantage over traditional anterior reconstruction techniques in that it can be inserted using a posterior approach.

27 keywords...

hide…