In vitro investigation of two connector types for continuous rod construct to extend lumbar spinal instrumentation
Instrumentation of the lumbar spine is a common procedure for treating pathologic conditions. Studies have revealed the risks of pathologies in the adjacent segments, with the incidence rate being up to 36.1%. Revision procedures are often required, including extension of the instrumentation by the use of connectors to adjacent levels. The aim of this study was to determine the stiffness of side-to-side and end-to-end connectors for comparison with the use of continuous rods.
Ten human lumbar spine specimens (L1–S1) were tested about the three axes under pure moment loading of ± 7.5 Nm. Nine conditions were used to investigate the functions of the extensions for different instrumentation lengths (L3–S1 and L2–S1) and different connector levels (L3/4 and L2/3). The intersegmental range of motion (iROM) and intersegmental neutral zone as well as total range of motion (tROM) and total neutral zone (tNZ) were analyzed.
The application of the spinal system significantly decreased the tROMs (− 44 to − 83%) and iROMs in levels L2/3 (− 56 to − 94%) and L3/4 (− 68 to − 99%) in all the tested directions, and the tNZ under flexion/extension (− 63 to − 71%) and axial rotation (− 34 to − 72%). These decreases were independent of the employed configuration (p < 0.05). The only significant changes in the iROM were observed under lateral bending between the continuous rod and the side-to-side connector at level L3/4 (p = 0.006).
From a biomechanical viewpoint, the tested connectors are comparable to continuous rods in terms of ROM and NZ.
KeywordsLumbar spine In vitro biomechanics Spinal fixation Rod system Connector
The authors thank Medtronic Inc. for providing the implants and instrumentations used in this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no potential conflict of interest.
- 7.Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC et al (2004) Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:1938–1944. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000137069.88904.03 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Volkheimer D, Malakoutian M, Oxland TR, Wilke H-J (2015) Limitations of current in vitro test protocols for investigation of instrumented adjacent segment biomechanics: critical analysis of the literature. Eur Spine J 24:1882–1892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4040-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Senatus P, Chinthakunta SR, Vazifeh P, Khalil S (2013) Biomechanical evaluation of a novel posterior integrated clamp that attaches to an existing posterior instrumentation for use in thoracolumbar revision. Asian Spine J 7:1–7. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2013.7.1.1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 27.Wai EK, Santos ERG, Morcom RA, Fraser RD (2006) Magnetic resonance imaging 20 years after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:1952–1956. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000228849.37321.a8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar