Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Biomechanics of Prophylactic Tethering for Proximal Junctional Kyphosis: Comparison of Posterior Tether Looping Techniques

  • Published:
Spine Deformity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Study Design

Biomechanical study.

Objectives

Compare effects of four spinous process (SP) tether looping methods on segmental flexion range of motion (ROM), intervertebral disc (IVD) pressures, and peak tether forces.

Summary of Background Data

SP tethering has been gaining interest as a prophylactic technique to prevent PJK caused by ligamentous laxity in ASD corrective surgery. Several SP tether looping methods have been proposed; however, there is no consensus on appropriate technique. No study has investigated the effect of the tether looping method on segmental biomechanics.

Methods

Nine T1–T4 cadaveric motion segments were tested to 5 Nm of flexion-extension. The uppermost instrumented vertebra (UIV) was located at T3 using standard pedicle screws and fusion rods. A crosslink (CL) was placed inferior to the pedicle screws. A 5-mm polyester tether was looped under the CL at UIV and through holes drilled at the base of UIV + 1 and UIV + 2 SPs. Biomechanical measurements included flexion ROM, IVD pressure, and peak tether forces at UIV/UIV + 1 and UIV + 1/UIV + 2. An untethered test was used for baseline values. Tethered tests included one single-level (SL) method and three double-level (DL) methods: common (CM), chained (CH), and figure-8 (F8).

Results

SL yielded significant reductions in flexion ROM at UIV/UIV + 1 (p = .001) and in IVD pressure at UIV/UIV + 1 (p = .007). Choice of DL method had a significant effect on flexion ROM at UIV/UIV + 1 (p = .004) but not at UIV + 1/UIV + 2 (p = .14). Choice of DL method also had a significant effect on IVD pressure at UIV/UIV + 1 (p < .001) but not at UIV + 1/UIV + 2 (p = .311). CM produced the greatest reductions in flexion ROM and IVD pressure, with the lowest peak tether forces among the DL methods.

Conclusion

Tether looping method significantly alters segmental biomechanics. Tethering with the CM method to UIV + 2 allows for reductions in loads acting on the UIV + 1 SP and posterior ligaments.

Level of Evidence

Level V, biomechanical study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lau D, Clark AJ, Scheer JK, et al. Proximal junctional kyphosis and failure after spinal deformity surgery: a systematic review of the literature as a background to classification development. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39:2093–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kim HJ, Lenke LG, Shaffrey CI, et al. Proximal junctional kyphosis as a distinct form of adjacent segment pathology after spinal deformity surgery: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(22 suppl):S144–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Yagi M, Akilah KB, Boachie-Adjei O. Incidence, risk factors and classification of proximal junctional kyphosis: surgical outcomes review of adult idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:E60–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Glattes RC, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al. Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity following long instrumented posterior spinal fusion: incidence, outcomes, and risk factor analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:1643–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cammarata M, Aubin CE, Wang X, et al. Biomechanical risk factors for proximal junctional kyphosis: a detailed numerical analysis of surgical instrumentation variables. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39:E500–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang J, Zhao Y, Shen B, et al. Risk factor analysis of proximal junctional kyphosis after posterior fusion in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Injury. 2010;41:415–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kim HJ, Iyer S. Proximal junctional kyphosis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016;24:318–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hart R, McCarthy I, O’Brien M, et al. Identification of decision criteria for revision surgery among patients with proximal junctional failure after surgical treatment of spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38:E1223–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Aquarius R, Homminga J, Hosman AJ, et al. Prophylactic vertebroplasty can decrease the fracture risk of adjacent vertebrae: an in vitro cadaveric study. Med Eng Phys. 2014;36:944–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kebaish KM, Martin CT, O’Brien JR, et al. Use of vertebroplasty to prevent proximal junctional fractures in adult deformity surgery: a biomechanical cadaveric study. Spine J. 2013;13:1897–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Martin CT, Skolasky RL, Mohamed AS, et al. Preliminary results of the effect of prophylactic vertebroplasty on the incidence of proximal junctional complications after posterior spinal fusion to the low thoracic spine. Spine Deform. 2013;1:132–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hart RA, Prendergast MA, Roberts WG, et al. Proximal junctional acute collapse cranial to multi-level lumbar fusion: a cost analysis of prophylactic vertebral augmentation. Spine J. 2008;8:875–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Anderson AL, McIff TE, Asher MA, et al. The effect of posterior thoracic spine anatomical structures on motion segment flexion stiffness. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:441–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen LH, Lai PL, Tai CL, et al. The effect of interspinous ligament integrity on adjacent segment instability after lumbar instrumentation and laminectomy—an experimental study in porcine model. Biomed Mater Eng. 2006;16:261–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Safaee MM, Osorio JA, Verma K, et al. Proximal junctional kyphosis prevention strategies: a video technique guide. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2017;13:581–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Bess S, et al. Recent and emerging advances in spinal deformity. Neurosurgery. 2017;80(3 suppl):S70–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nguyen NL, Kong CY, Hart RA. Proximal junctional kyphosis and failure—diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9:299–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ailon T, Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, et al. Degenerative spinal deformity. Neurosurgery. 2015;77(suppl 4):S75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bess S, Harris JE, Turner AW, et al. The effect of posterior polyester tethers on the biomechanics of proximal junctional kyphosis: a finite element analysis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;26:125–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zaghloul KM, Matoian BJ, Denardin NB, et al. Preventing proximal adjacent level kyphosis with strap stabilization. Orthopedics. 2016;39:e794–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Panjabi MM. Hybrid multidirectional test method to evaluate spinal adjacent-level effects. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2007;22:257–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Meade KP, et al. A follower load increases the load-carrying capacity of the lumbar spine in compression. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24:1003–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Stanley SK, Ghanayem AJ, Voronov LI, et al. Flexion-extension response of the thoracolumbar spine under compressive follower preload. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29:E510–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L. Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J. 1998;7:148–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Harrell RM, Tong J, Weinhold PS, et al. Comparison of the mechanical properties of different tension band materials and suture techniques. J Orthop Trauma. 2003;17:119–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Mummaneni PV, Park P, Fu KM, et al. Does minimally invasive percutaneous posterior instrumentation reduce risk of proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity surgery? A propensity-matched cohort analysis. Neurosurgery. 2016;78:101–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hostin R, McCarthy I, O’Brien M, et al. Incidence, mode, and location of acute proximal junctional failures after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38:1008–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA

    Damon E. Mar PhD, Douglas C. Burton MD & Terence E. McIff PhD, MBA

Authors
  1. Damon E. Mar PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas C. Burton MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Terence E. McIff PhD, MBA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Damon E. Mar PhD.

Additional information

Author disclosures: DEM (none), DCB (grants and personal fees from DePuy Spine, nonfinancial support from the International Spine Study Group and the Scoliosis Research Society; other from University of Kansas Physicians, Bioventurs, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work), TEM (none).

IRB Approval: None applicable.

Funding Sources: Marc A. and Elinor J. Asher Orthopedic Research Endowment.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mar, D.E., Burton, D.C. & McIff, T.E. Biomechanics of Prophylactic Tethering for Proximal Junctional Kyphosis: Comparison of Posterior Tether Looping Techniques. Spine Deform 7, 197–202 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2018.07.001

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2018.07.001

Keywords

Search

Navigation