The biomechanical impact of the surgical instrumentation configuration for spine surgery is hard to evaluate by the surgeons in pre-operative situation. This study was performed to evaluate different configurations of the anterior instrumentation of the spine, with simulated post-operative conditions, to recommend configurations to the surgeons. Four biomechanical parameters of the anterior instrumentation with simulated post-operative conditions have been studied. They were the screw diameter (5.5–7.5 mm) and its angle (0°–22.5°), the bone grip of the screw (mono–bi cortical) and the amount of instrumented levels (5–8). Eight configurations were tested using an experimental plan with instrumented synthetic spinal models. A follower load was applied and the models were loaded in flexion, torsion and lateral bending. At 5 Nm, average final stiffness was greater in flexion (0.92 Nm/°) than in lateral bending (0.56 Nm/°) and than in torsion (0.26 Nm/°). The screw angle was the parameter influencing the most the final stiffness and the coupling behaviors. It has a significant effect (p ≤ 0.05) on increasing the final stiffness for a 22.5° screw angle in flexion and for a coronal screw angle (0°) in lateral bending. The bi-cortical bone grip of the screw significantly increased the initial stiffness in flexion and lateral bending. Mathematical models representing the behavior of an instrumented spinal model have been used to identify optimal instrumentation configurations. A variation of the angle of the screw from 22.5° to 0° gave a global final stiffness diminution of 13% and a global coupling diminution of 40%. The screw angle was the most important parameter affecting the stiffness and the coupling of the instrumented spine with simulated post-operative conditions. Information about the effect of four different biomechanical parameters will be helpful in preoperative situations to guide surgeons in their clinical choices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Belmont P, Polly D, Cuuningham B, Klemme W (2001) The effect of hook pattern and kyphotic angulation on mechanical strength and apical rod strain in a long-segment posterior construct using a synthetic model. Spine 26:627–636
Betz R, Shufflebarger H (2001) Anterior versus posterior instrumentation for the correction of thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 26:1095–1100
Box G, Hunter W, Hunter J (1978) Statistics for experimenters. Wiley, New York
Brodke D, Bachus K, Mohr A, Nguyen BK (2001) Segmental pedicle screw fixation or cross-links in multilevel lumbar constructs: a biomechanical analysis. Spine 1:373–379
Brodke D, Gollogly S, Bachus K, Mohr A, Nguyen BK (2003) Anterior thoracolumbar instrumentation: stiffness and load sharing characteristics of plate and rod systems. Spine 1794–1801
Choma T, Chwirut D, Polly D (2001) Biomechanics of long segment fixation: hook patterns and rod strain. J Spinal Disord 14:125–132
Crawford A (2004) Anterior surgery in the thoracic and lumbar spine: Endoscopic techniques in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:2752–2673
Dwyer AF, Newton NC, Sherwood AA (1969) An anterior approach to scoliosis: A preliminary report. Clin Orthop 62:192–202
Fricka K, Mahar A, Newton P (2002) Biomechanical analysis of anterior scoliosis instrumentation: differences between single and dual rod systems with and without structural support. Spine 27:702–706
Goel V, Ilder D, Pope M (1995) Biomechanical testing of the spine: load-controlled versus displacement-controlled analysis. Spine 20:2354–2357
Grassmann S, Oxland T, Gerich U, Nolte L (1998) Constrained testing conditions affect the axial rotation response of lumbar functional spinal units. Spine 23:1155–1162
Hitchon P, Brenton M, Coppes J, From A, Torner J (2003) Factors affecting the pullout strength of self-drilling and self-tapping anterior cervical screws. Spine 28:9–13
Hitchon P, Goel V, Rogge T, Grosland N, Torner J (1999) Biomechanical studies on two thoracolumbar implants in cadaveric spines. Spine 24:213–218
Joncas J, Labelle H, Poitras B, Duhaime M, Rivard CH, Leblanc R (1996) Dorso-lumbal pain and idiopathic scoliosis in adolescence. Ann Chir 50:637–640
Liljenqvist U, Hackenberg L, Link T, Halm H (2001) Pullout strength of pedicle screws versus pedicle and laminar hooks in the thoracic spine. Acta Orthop Belg 67:157–163
Lowe T, Betz R, Lenke L, Clements D, Harms J, Newton P, Haher T, Merola A, Wenger D (2003) Anterior single-rod instrumentation of the thoracic and lumbar spine: saving levels. Spine 28:208–216
Mullet H, Odonnell T, Felle P, Orourke K, Fitzpatrick D (2002) Development of a model for occipital fixation: validation of an analogue bone material. Proc Inst Mech Eng 216:37–42
Oda I, Cunningham B, Lee G, Abumi K, Kaneda K, Mcafee P (2000) Biomechanical properties of anterior thoracolumbar multisegmental fixation. Spine 25:2303–2311
Panjabi M, Abuni K, Duranceau J, Oxland T (1989) Spinal stability and intersegmental muscles forces. A biomechanical model. Spine 14:194–200
Panjabi M, Takata K, Goel V, Federico D, Oxland T, Duranceau J, Krag M (1991) Thoracic human vertebrae: quantitative three-dimensional anatomy. Spine l16:888–901
Patwardhan A, Havey R, Meade K, Lee B, Dunlap B (1999) A follower load increases the load-carrying capacity of the lumbar spine in compression. Spine 24:1003–1012
Quint U, Wilke H, Shirazi-adl A, Parnianpour M, Loer F, Claes L (1998) Importance of the intersegmental trunk muscles for the stability of the lumbar spine. A biomechanical study in vitro. Spine 23:1937–1945
Regan J, Mack M, Picetti G (1995) A technical report on video-assisted thoracoscopy in thoracic spinal surgery: preliminary description. Spine 20:831–837
Rohlmann A, Neller S, Claes L, Bergmann G, Wilke HJ (2001) Influence of a follower load on intradiscal pressure and intersegmental rotation of the lumbar spine. Spine 26:557–561
Shimamoto N, Kotani Y, Shono Y, Kadoya K, Abumi K, Kaneda K, Minami A (2001) Biomechanical evaluation of anterior spinal instrumentation systems for scoliosis: in vitro fatigue simulation. Spine 26:2701–2708
Shimamoto N, Kotani Y, Shono Y, Kadoya K, Abumi K, Minami A, Kaneda K (2003) Static and dynamic analysis of five anterior instrumentation systems for thoracolumbar scoliosis. Spine 28:1678–1685
Spiegel D, Cunningham B, Oda I, Dormans J, Mcafee P, Drummond D (2000) Anterior vertebral screw strain with and without solid interspace support. Spine 25:2755–2761
Szivek JA, Thomas M, Benjamin JB (1993) Characterization of a synthetic foam as a model for human cancellous bone. J appl Biomater 4:269–272
Takemura Y, Yamamoto H, Tani T (1999) Biomechanical study of the development of scoliosis, using a thoracolumbar spine model. J Orthop Sci 4:439–445
Wattenbarger J, Herring J, Bronson D, Ashman R (2001) Mechanical testing of a single rod versus a double rod in a long-segment animal model. J Spinal Disord 14:232–236
White A III, Panjabi M (1990) Clinical biomechanics of the spine. JB Lippincott Company, Philadelphia
Wilke H, Antonius R, Neller S, Schulthei M, Bergmann G, Friedmar G, Claes L (2001) Is it possible to simulate physiologic loading conditions by applying pure moments? a comparison of in vivo and in vitro load components in an internal fixator. Spine 26:636–642
The author would like to thank Josee Carrier for her computer programming support. This research was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (R&D coop program with Medtronic Sofamor Danek) and the Canada Research Chair Program.
About this article
Cite this article
Cloutier, L.P., Aubin, C. & Grimard, G. Biomechanical study of anterior spinal instrumentation configurations. Eur Spine J 16, 1039–1045 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0246-1
- Anterior instrumentation
- Biomechanical testing
- Follower load