Mechanical stiffness of segmental versus nonsegmental pedicle screw constructs: The effect of cross-links

Robert Hart, Werner Hettwer, Qi Liu, Shilpa Prem

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study Design. A biomechanical study in porcine spines of the construct stiffness effects of segmental pedicle screws. Stiffness effects of supplementation of non-segmental screw constructs with cross-links was also evaluated. Objective. To assess the biomechanical differences between constructs using segmental versus nonsegmental pedicle screw-based instrumentation as well as the effect of cross-links. Summary of Background Data. An in vitro biomechanical comparison of segmental versus nonsegmental pedicle screw constructs with and without cross-links using porcine lumbar vertebrae was performed. Mechanical trade-offs of reducing the number of pedicle screws in a given construct and substituting a cross-link for a pair of screws are not well understood. Methods. Three, 4, and 5-vertebral segments from 18 porcine spines were instrumented with segmental and nonsegmental pedicle screw constructs, and with non-segmental screws augmented with cross-links. Unconstrained biomechanical testing in flexion, extension, and axial rotation with 6 degree-of-freedom motion tracking was performed. Statistical comparisons of stiffness data were conducted using 2-tailed paired t tests. Results. There was a statistically significant increase in stiffness between models with segmental pedicle screws compared to nonsegmental pedicle screws in 6 of the 9 mechanical tests. The remaining 3 tests approached but did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.087, 0.062, and 0.078). When cross-links were added to the nonsegmental models, differences in stiffness compared to segmental pedicle screws were largely eliminated, decreasing well below statistical significance in 8 of 9 tests. The highest difference in nonsegmental models with cross-links and segmental pedicle screw models was observed for the 5-vertebrae fusion models, for which axial rotation testing maintained statistically significant differences (P = 0.006), and flexion testing approached significance (P = 0.062). Conclusions. Segmental pedicle screw constructs increased mechanical stiffness compared to nonsegmental constructs in our fusion models. Placement of a single cross-link with nonsegmental screws eliminated statistical differences for 3 and 4-vertebral level constructs, and may be a satisfactory alternative in this clinical setting. Caution in applying these results in longer constructs is recommended, given persistent increased stiffness found for the segmental 5-vertebral level models.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalSpine
Volume31
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2006

Fingerprint

Spine
Swine
Pedicle Screws
Lumbar Vertebrae
In Vitro Techniques

Keywords

  • Biomechanics
  • Cross-links
  • Lumbar spine
  • Pedicle screws
  • Spinal-fusion

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physiology
  • Clinical Neurology
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Mechanical stiffness of segmental versus nonsegmental pedicle screw constructs : The effect of cross-links. / Hart, Robert; Hettwer, Werner; Liu, Qi; Prem, Shilpa.

In: Spine, Vol. 31, No. 2, 01.2006.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hart, Robert ; Hettwer, Werner ; Liu, Qi ; Prem, Shilpa. / Mechanical stiffness of segmental versus nonsegmental pedicle screw constructs : The effect of cross-links. In: Spine. 2006 ; Vol. 31, No. 2.
@article{c94765d3e7cb4ffe997865fb51369b24,
title = "Mechanical stiffness of segmental versus nonsegmental pedicle screw constructs: The effect of cross-links",
abstract = "Study Design. A biomechanical study in porcine spines of the construct stiffness effects of segmental pedicle screws. Stiffness effects of supplementation of non-segmental screw constructs with cross-links was also evaluated. Objective. To assess the biomechanical differences between constructs using segmental versus nonsegmental pedicle screw-based instrumentation as well as the effect of cross-links. Summary of Background Data. An in vitro biomechanical comparison of segmental versus nonsegmental pedicle screw constructs with and without cross-links using porcine lumbar vertebrae was performed. Mechanical trade-offs of reducing the number of pedicle screws in a given construct and substituting a cross-link for a pair of screws are not well understood. Methods. Three, 4, and 5-vertebral segments from 18 porcine spines were instrumented with segmental and nonsegmental pedicle screw constructs, and with non-segmental screws augmented with cross-links. Unconstrained biomechanical testing in flexion, extension, and axial rotation with 6 degree-of-freedom motion tracking was performed. Statistical comparisons of stiffness data were conducted using 2-tailed paired t tests. Results. There was a statistically significant increase in stiffness between models with segmental pedicle screws compared to nonsegmental pedicle screws in 6 of the 9 mechanical tests. The remaining 3 tests approached but did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.087, 0.062, and 0.078). When cross-links were added to the nonsegmental models, differences in stiffness compared to segmental pedicle screws were largely eliminated, decreasing well below statistical significance in 8 of 9 tests. The highest difference in nonsegmental models with cross-links and segmental pedicle screw models was observed for the 5-vertebrae fusion models, for which axial rotation testing maintained statistically significant differences (P = 0.006), and flexion testing approached significance (P = 0.062). Conclusions. Segmental pedicle screw constructs increased mechanical stiffness compared to nonsegmental constructs in our fusion models. Placement of a single cross-link with nonsegmental screws eliminated statistical differences for 3 and 4-vertebral level constructs, and may be a satisfactory alternative in this clinical setting. Caution in applying these results in longer constructs is recommended, given persistent increased stiffness found for the segmental 5-vertebral level models.",
keywords = "Biomechanics, Cross-links, Lumbar spine, Pedicle screws, Spinal-fusion",
author = "Robert Hart and Werner Hettwer and Qi Liu and Shilpa Prem",
year = "2006",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1097/01.brs.0000194835.89010.22",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
journal = "Spine",
issn = "0362-2436",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mechanical stiffness of segmental versus nonsegmental pedicle screw constructs

T2 - The effect of cross-links

AU - Hart, Robert

AU - Hettwer, Werner

AU - Liu, Qi

AU - Prem, Shilpa

PY - 2006/1

Y1 - 2006/1

N2 - Study Design. A biomechanical study in porcine spines of the construct stiffness effects of segmental pedicle screws. Stiffness effects of supplementation of non-segmental screw constructs with cross-links was also evaluated. Objective. To assess the biomechanical differences between constructs using segmental versus nonsegmental pedicle screw-based instrumentation as well as the effect of cross-links. Summary of Background Data. An in vitro biomechanical comparison of segmental versus nonsegmental pedicle screw constructs with and without cross-links using porcine lumbar vertebrae was performed. Mechanical trade-offs of reducing the number of pedicle screws in a given construct and substituting a cross-link for a pair of screws are not well understood. Methods. Three, 4, and 5-vertebral segments from 18 porcine spines were instrumented with segmental and nonsegmental pedicle screw constructs, and with non-segmental screws augmented with cross-links. Unconstrained biomechanical testing in flexion, extension, and axial rotation with 6 degree-of-freedom motion tracking was performed. Statistical comparisons of stiffness data were conducted using 2-tailed paired t tests. Results. There was a statistically significant increase in stiffness between models with segmental pedicle screws compared to nonsegmental pedicle screws in 6 of the 9 mechanical tests. The remaining 3 tests approached but did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.087, 0.062, and 0.078). When cross-links were added to the nonsegmental models, differences in stiffness compared to segmental pedicle screws were largely eliminated, decreasing well below statistical significance in 8 of 9 tests. The highest difference in nonsegmental models with cross-links and segmental pedicle screw models was observed for the 5-vertebrae fusion models, for which axial rotation testing maintained statistically significant differences (P = 0.006), and flexion testing approached significance (P = 0.062). Conclusions. Segmental pedicle screw constructs increased mechanical stiffness compared to nonsegmental constructs in our fusion models. Placement of a single cross-link with nonsegmental screws eliminated statistical differences for 3 and 4-vertebral level constructs, and may be a satisfactory alternative in this clinical setting. Caution in applying these results in longer constructs is recommended, given persistent increased stiffness found for the segmental 5-vertebral level models.

AB - Study Design. A biomechanical study in porcine spines of the construct stiffness effects of segmental pedicle screws. Stiffness effects of supplementation of non-segmental screw constructs with cross-links was also evaluated. Objective. To assess the biomechanical differences between constructs using segmental versus nonsegmental pedicle screw-based instrumentation as well as the effect of cross-links. Summary of Background Data. An in vitro biomechanical comparison of segmental versus nonsegmental pedicle screw constructs with and without cross-links using porcine lumbar vertebrae was performed. Mechanical trade-offs of reducing the number of pedicle screws in a given construct and substituting a cross-link for a pair of screws are not well understood. Methods. Three, 4, and 5-vertebral segments from 18 porcine spines were instrumented with segmental and nonsegmental pedicle screw constructs, and with non-segmental screws augmented with cross-links. Unconstrained biomechanical testing in flexion, extension, and axial rotation with 6 degree-of-freedom motion tracking was performed. Statistical comparisons of stiffness data were conducted using 2-tailed paired t tests. Results. There was a statistically significant increase in stiffness between models with segmental pedicle screws compared to nonsegmental pedicle screws in 6 of the 9 mechanical tests. The remaining 3 tests approached but did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.087, 0.062, and 0.078). When cross-links were added to the nonsegmental models, differences in stiffness compared to segmental pedicle screws were largely eliminated, decreasing well below statistical significance in 8 of 9 tests. The highest difference in nonsegmental models with cross-links and segmental pedicle screw models was observed for the 5-vertebrae fusion models, for which axial rotation testing maintained statistically significant differences (P = 0.006), and flexion testing approached significance (P = 0.062). Conclusions. Segmental pedicle screw constructs increased mechanical stiffness compared to nonsegmental constructs in our fusion models. Placement of a single cross-link with nonsegmental screws eliminated statistical differences for 3 and 4-vertebral level constructs, and may be a satisfactory alternative in this clinical setting. Caution in applying these results in longer constructs is recommended, given persistent increased stiffness found for the segmental 5-vertebral level models.

KW - Biomechanics

KW - Cross-links

KW - Lumbar spine

KW - Pedicle screws

KW - Spinal-fusion

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=30944447510&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=30944447510&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.brs.0000194835.89010.22

DO - 10.1097/01.brs.0000194835.89010.22

M3 - Article

C2 - 16418622

AN - SCOPUS:30944447510

VL - 31

JO - Spine

JF - Spine

SN - 0362-2436

IS - 2

ER -