TY - JOUR
T1 - A comprehensive biomechanical analysis of sacral alar iliac fixation
T2 - An in vitro human cadaveric model
AU - Cunningham, Bryan W.
AU - Sponseller, Paul D.
AU - Murgatroyd, Ashley A.
AU - Kikkawa, Jun
AU - Justin Tortolani, P.
N1 - Funding Information:
Dr. Cunningham reports receiving clinical or research support for the study from DePuy Synthes Spine, Inc. Dr. Sponseller reports receiving research support and royalties from DePuy Synthes Spine, Inc., and royalties from Globus Medical. Dr. Tortolani reports receiving royalties, payment for the sale of intellectual properties, and fellowship grant support from Globus Medical, Innovasis, and KM2, as well as a clinical research grant and royalties from Spineology; he is also a consultant for Innovasis. Monetary grant research support and instrumentation were provided by DePuy Synthes Spine, Inc. Grant support was provided by Advanced Spinal Technology, LLC.
Publisher Copyright:
©AANS 2019.
Copyright:
Copyright 2019 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/3
Y1 - 2019/3
N2 - OBJECTIVE The objective of the current study was to quantify and compare the multidirectional flexibility properties of sacral alar iliac fixation with conventional methods of sacral and sacroiliac fixation by using nondestructive and destructive investigative methods. METHODS Twenty-one cadaveric lumbopelvic spines were randomized into 3 groups based on reconstruction conditions: 1) S1–2 sacral screws; 2) sacral alar iliac screws; and 3) S1–iliac screws tested under unilateral and bilateral fixation. Nondestructive multidirectional flexibility testing was performed using a 6-degree-of-freedom spine simulator with moments of ± 12.5 Nm. Flexion-extension fatigue loading was then performed for 10,000 cycles, and the multidirectional flexibility analysis was repeated. Final destructive testing included an anterior flexural load to construct failure. Quantification of the lumbosacral and sacroiliac joint range of motion was normalized to the intact spine (100%), and flexural failure loads were reported in Newton-meters. RESULTS Normalized value comparisons between the intact spine and the 3 reconstruction groups demonstrated significant reductions in segmental flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation motion at L4–5 and L5–S1 (p < 0.05). The S1–2 sacral reconstruction group demonstrated significantly greater flexion-extension motion at the sacroiliac junction than the intact and comparative reconstruction groups (p < 0.05), whereas the sacral alar iliac group demonstrated significantly less motion at the sacroiliac joint in axial rotation (p < 0.05). Absolute value comparisons demonstrated similar findings. Under destructive anterior flexural loading, the S1–2 sacral group failed at 105 ± 23 Nm, and the sacral alar iliac and S1–iliac groups failed at 119 ± 39 Nm and 120 ± 28 Nm, respectively (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Along with difficult anatomy and weak bone, the large lumbosacral loads with cantilever pullout forces in this region are primary reasons for construct failure. All reconstructions significantly reduced flexibility at the L5–S1 junctions, as expected. Conventional S1–2 sacral fixation significantly increased sacroiliac motion under all loading modalities and demonstrated significantly higher flexion-extension motion than all other groups, and sacral alar iliac fixation reduced motion in axial rotation at the sacroiliac joint. Based on comprehensive multidirectional flexibility testing, the sacral alar iliac fixation technique reduced segmental motion under some loading modalities compared to S1–iliac screws and offers potential advantages of lower instrumentation profile and ease of assembly compared to conventional sacroiliac instrumentation techniques.
AB - OBJECTIVE The objective of the current study was to quantify and compare the multidirectional flexibility properties of sacral alar iliac fixation with conventional methods of sacral and sacroiliac fixation by using nondestructive and destructive investigative methods. METHODS Twenty-one cadaveric lumbopelvic spines were randomized into 3 groups based on reconstruction conditions: 1) S1–2 sacral screws; 2) sacral alar iliac screws; and 3) S1–iliac screws tested under unilateral and bilateral fixation. Nondestructive multidirectional flexibility testing was performed using a 6-degree-of-freedom spine simulator with moments of ± 12.5 Nm. Flexion-extension fatigue loading was then performed for 10,000 cycles, and the multidirectional flexibility analysis was repeated. Final destructive testing included an anterior flexural load to construct failure. Quantification of the lumbosacral and sacroiliac joint range of motion was normalized to the intact spine (100%), and flexural failure loads were reported in Newton-meters. RESULTS Normalized value comparisons between the intact spine and the 3 reconstruction groups demonstrated significant reductions in segmental flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation motion at L4–5 and L5–S1 (p < 0.05). The S1–2 sacral reconstruction group demonstrated significantly greater flexion-extension motion at the sacroiliac junction than the intact and comparative reconstruction groups (p < 0.05), whereas the sacral alar iliac group demonstrated significantly less motion at the sacroiliac joint in axial rotation (p < 0.05). Absolute value comparisons demonstrated similar findings. Under destructive anterior flexural loading, the S1–2 sacral group failed at 105 ± 23 Nm, and the sacral alar iliac and S1–iliac groups failed at 119 ± 39 Nm and 120 ± 28 Nm, respectively (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Along with difficult anatomy and weak bone, the large lumbosacral loads with cantilever pullout forces in this region are primary reasons for construct failure. All reconstructions significantly reduced flexibility at the L5–S1 junctions, as expected. Conventional S1–2 sacral fixation significantly increased sacroiliac motion under all loading modalities and demonstrated significantly higher flexion-extension motion than all other groups, and sacral alar iliac fixation reduced motion in axial rotation at the sacroiliac joint. Based on comprehensive multidirectional flexibility testing, the sacral alar iliac fixation technique reduced segmental motion under some loading modalities compared to S1–iliac screws and offers potential advantages of lower instrumentation profile and ease of assembly compared to conventional sacroiliac instrumentation techniques.
KW - Biomechanical properties
KW - Iliac screws
KW - Sacral alar iliac fixation
KW - Sacroiliac junction
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063676745&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85063676745&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3171/2018.8.SPINE18328
DO - 10.3171/2018.8.SPINE18328
M3 - Article
C2 - 30611149
AN - SCOPUS:85063676745
SN - 1547-5654
VL - 30
SP - 367
EP - 375
JO - Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine
JF - Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine
IS - 3
ER -