Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Biomechanical comparison of spinopelvic reconstruction techniques in the setting of total sacrectomy.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Dec 15; 37(26):E1622-7.S

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN

An in vitro biomechanical study.

OBJECTIVE

To biomechanically test and evaluate 4 different methods of spinopelvic reconstruction techniques and determine the most biomechanically stable construct for stabilization of the spinopelvic junction after total sacrectomy.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Total sacrectomy is necessary to treat a sacral tumor when it involves the S1 vertebra. Instrumentation and reconstruction of the lumbar spine and pelvis are required after total sacrectomy and can be achieved by various reconstruction techniques. Currently, the preferred method of spinopelvic fixation is controversial.

METHODS

Seven human cadaveric (L1-pelvis) specimens were evaluated in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation in a total sacrectomy model. Test constructs included (1) intact; (2) double-rod, double iliac screw (DDS); (3) single-rod, single iliac screw (SSS); (4) double iliac screw (DIS) fixation; and (5) modified Galveston technique (MGT). A load control protocol with 7.0 Nm moments applied at a rate of 1.5°/s was used to establish range of motion values for each tested construct on a 6-df spine motion simulator. Data were analyzed and normalized to intact.

RESULTS

All instrumented constructs offered significant stability in all loading conditions compared with the intact condition. Stability offered by different constructs in all loading conditions trended as follows: DDS>DIS>SSS>MGT. Overall, the DDS construct provided 55%, 43%, and 60% more stability than SSS, DIS, and MGT, respectively. This was significant in flexion-extension when compared with SSS and in all loading conditions when compared with MGT.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of total sacrectomy, the double-rod double iliac screw method provided the most rigid fixation, followed by DIS fixation, single-rod single screw, and the MGT. In spinopelvic reconstruction, the use of double iliac screws is recommended compared with single iliac screw fixation techniques when treating unstable conditions caused by total sacrectomy.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

23038619

Citation

Mindea, Stefan A., et al. "Biomechanical Comparison of Spinopelvic Reconstruction Techniques in the Setting of Total Sacrectomy." Spine, vol. 37, no. 26, 2012, pp. E1622-7.
Mindea SA, Chinthakunta S, Moldavsky M, et al. Biomechanical comparison of spinopelvic reconstruction techniques in the setting of total sacrectomy. Spine. 2012;37(26):E1622-7.
Mindea, S. A., Chinthakunta, S., Moldavsky, M., Gudipally, M., & Khalil, S. (2012). Biomechanical comparison of spinopelvic reconstruction techniques in the setting of total sacrectomy. Spine, 37(26), E1622-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31827619d3
Mindea SA, et al. Biomechanical Comparison of Spinopelvic Reconstruction Techniques in the Setting of Total Sacrectomy. Spine. 2012 Dec 15;37(26):E1622-7. PubMed PMID: 23038619.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Biomechanical comparison of spinopelvic reconstruction techniques in the setting of total sacrectomy. AU - Mindea,Stefan A, AU - Chinthakunta,Suresh, AU - Moldavsky,Mark, AU - Gudipally,Manasa, AU - Khalil,Saif, PY - 2012/10/6/entrez PY - 2012/10/6/pubmed PY - 2013/5/28/medline SP - E1622 EP - 7 JF - Spine JO - Spine VL - 37 IS - 26 N2 - STUDY DESIGN: An in vitro biomechanical study. OBJECTIVE: To biomechanically test and evaluate 4 different methods of spinopelvic reconstruction techniques and determine the most biomechanically stable construct for stabilization of the spinopelvic junction after total sacrectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Total sacrectomy is necessary to treat a sacral tumor when it involves the S1 vertebra. Instrumentation and reconstruction of the lumbar spine and pelvis are required after total sacrectomy and can be achieved by various reconstruction techniques. Currently, the preferred method of spinopelvic fixation is controversial. METHODS: Seven human cadaveric (L1-pelvis) specimens were evaluated in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation in a total sacrectomy model. Test constructs included (1) intact; (2) double-rod, double iliac screw (DDS); (3) single-rod, single iliac screw (SSS); (4) double iliac screw (DIS) fixation; and (5) modified Galveston technique (MGT). A load control protocol with 7.0 Nm moments applied at a rate of 1.5°/s was used to establish range of motion values for each tested construct on a 6-df spine motion simulator. Data were analyzed and normalized to intact. RESULTS: All instrumented constructs offered significant stability in all loading conditions compared with the intact condition. Stability offered by different constructs in all loading conditions trended as follows: DDS>DIS>SSS>MGT. Overall, the DDS construct provided 55%, 43%, and 60% more stability than SSS, DIS, and MGT, respectively. This was significant in flexion-extension when compared with SSS and in all loading conditions when compared with MGT. CONCLUSION: In the setting of total sacrectomy, the double-rod double iliac screw method provided the most rigid fixation, followed by DIS fixation, single-rod single screw, and the MGT. In spinopelvic reconstruction, the use of double iliac screws is recommended compared with single iliac screw fixation techniques when treating unstable conditions caused by total sacrectomy. SN - 1528-1159 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/23038619/Biomechanical_comparison_of_spinopelvic_reconstruction_techniques_in_the_setting_of_total_sacrectomy_ L2 - http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31827619d3 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -