James B. Billys

Biomechanics of lateral plate and pedicle screw constructs in lumbar spines instrumented at two levels with laterally placed interbody cages

BACKGROUND CONTEXT The lateral transpsoas approach to interbody fusion is gaining popularity because of its minimally invasive nature and resultant indirect neurologic decompression. The acute biomechanical stability of the lateral approach to interbody fusion is dependent on the type of supplemental internal fixation used. The two-hole lateral plate (LP) has been approved for clinical use for added stabilization after cage instrumentation. However, little biomechanical data exist comparing LP fixation with bilateral pedicle screw and rod (PSR) fixation. PURPOSE To biomechanically compare the acute stabilizing effects of the two-hole LP and bilateral PSR fusion constructs in lumbar spines instrumented with a lateral cage at two contiguous levels. STUDY DESIGN Biomechanical laboratory study of human cadaveric lumbar spines. METHODS Eighteen L1-S1 cadaveric lumbar spines were instrumented with lateral cages at L3-L4 and L4-L5 after intact kinematic analysis. Specimens (n=9 each) were allocated for supplemental instrumentation with either LP or PSR. Intact versus instrumented range of motion was evaluated for all specimens by applying pure moments (±7.5 Nm) in flexion/extension, lateral bending (LB) (left+right), and axial rotation (AR) (left+right). Instrumented spines were later subjected to 500 cycles of loading in all three planes, and interbody cage translations were quantified using a nonradiographic technique. RESULTS Lateral plate fixation significantly reduced ROM (p<.05) at both lumbar levels (flexion/extension: 49.5%; LB: 67.3%; AR: 48.2%) relative to the intact condition. Pedicle screw and rod fixation afforded the greatest ROM reductions (p<.05) relative to the intact condition (flexion/extension: 85.6%; LB: 91.4%; AR: 61.1%). On average, the largest interbody cage translations were measured in both fixation groups in the anterior-posterior direction during cyclic AR. CONCLUSIONS Based on these biomechanical findings, PSR fixation maximizes stability after lateral interbody cage placement. The nonradiographic technique served to quantify migration of implanted hardware and may be implemented as an effective laboratory tool for surgeons and engineers to better understand mechanical behavior of spinal implants.

A Cadaveric Radiographic Analysis on the Effect of Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion Cage Placement With Supplementary Internal Fixation on Indirect Spine Decompression

Study Design: Cadaveric Biomechanical and Radiographic Analysis. Objective: The purpose of this study was to quantify the changes in intervertebral height and lateral and central recess areas afforded by lateral interbody fusion cages with 2 supplemental forms of internal fixation in cadaveric specimens. Background Data: When conservative treatment for symptomatic lumbar stenosis fails, traditional intervention has been direct posterior decompression. The minimally invasive, lateral transpsoas approach may be a viable alternative to direct decompression by providing restoration of the foraminal and intervertebral dimensions, yet few reports have examined the anatomic and radiographic changes that occur using this technique. Methods: Computed tomography (CT) scans were taken of 18 intact lumbar (L1–S1) cadaveric specimens under a 400 N preload. Intervertebral height, foraminal areas, and canal area were measured at L3–L4 and L4–L5. Thereafter, the cadaveric specimens were instrumented with lateral cages placed in the central or posterior third of the disk space at L3–L4 and L4–L5 and either (1) lateral plate (n=9) or (2) bilateral posterior pedicle screw fixation (n=9). All constructs were again subjected to a 400 N preload, postinstrumentation CT scans were taken, and changes in intervertebral height and lateral and central recess areas were calculated. Results: There was no effect of cage placement on any radiographic metric of indirect decompression for either fusion construct. In the lateral plate and pedicle screw groups, respectively, significant increases in average posterior disk height (30.9%, 60.1%), average right (35.3%, 61.5%) and left foraminal area (48.3%, 57.8%), and average canal area (32.3%, 33.3%) were observed. Pedicle screw instrumentation afforded a significantly greater increase in average posterior disk height and foraminal area compared with the lateral plate group, though there was no difference in the average increase in canal area afforded by either form of fixation. Conclusions: The radiographic results reported here using a cadaveric model add validity to the underlying rationale described for the minimally invasive lateral approach technique. Increases in disk height, foraminal and canal areas were not dependent on cage positioning within the disk space. As intraoperative placement of a cage in the central portion of the disk is an easier and safer technique, our results suggest that central placement may be preferable in a clinical setting.

Technical description of oblique lateral interbody fusion at L1-L5 (OLIF25) and at L5-S1 (OLIF51) and evaluation of complication and fusion rates.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT The oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) procedure is aimed at mitigating some of the challenges seen with traditional anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), and allows for interbody fusion at L1-S1. PURPOSE The study aimed to describe the OLIF technique and assess the complication and fusion rates. STUDY DESIGN This is a retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE The sample is composed of 137 patients who underwent OLIF procedure. OUTCOME MEASURES The outcome measures were adverse events within 6 months of surgery: infection, symptomatic pseudarthrosis, hardware failure, vascular injury, perioperative blood transfusion, ureteral injury, bowel injury, renal injury, prolonged postoperative ileus (more than 3 days), incisional hernia, pseudohernia, reoperation, neurologic deficits (weakness, numbness, paresthesia), hip flexion pain, retrograde ejaculation, sympathectomy affecting lower extremities, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pneumonia, and cerebrovascular accident. The outcome measures also include fusion and subsidence rates based on computed tomography (CT) done at 6 months postoperatively. METHODS Retrospective chart review of 150 consecutive patients was performed to examine the complications associated with OLIF at L1-L5 (OLIF25), OLIF at L5-S1 (OLIF51), and OLIF at L1-L5 combined with OLIF at L5-S1 (OLIF25+OLIF51). Only patients who had at least 6 months of postoperative follow-up, including CT scan at 6 months after surgery, were included. Independent radiology review of CT data was performed to assess fusion and subsidence rates at 6 months. RESULTS A total of 137 patients underwent fusion at 340 levels. An overall complication rate of 11.7% was seen. The most common complications were subsidence (4.4%), postoperative ileus (2.9%), and vascular injury (2.9%). Ileus and vascular injuries were only seen in cases including OLIF51. No patient suffered neurologic injury. No cases of ureteral injury, sympathectomy affecting the lower extremities, or visceral injury were seen. Successful fusion was seen at 97.9% of surgical levels. CONCLUSIONS Oblique lateral interbody fusion is a safe procedure at L1-L5 as well as L5-S1. The complication profile appears acceptable when compared with LLIF and ALIF. The oblique trajectory mitigates psoas muscle and lumbosacral plexus-related complications seen with the lateral transpsoas approach. Furthermore, there is a high fusion rate based on CT data at 6 months.

Early Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes Study Evaluating an Integrated Screw and Interbody Spacer for One- and Two-Level ACDF

Background Multiple techniques and implants can be used in ACDF, the newest of which are integrated cage and screw constructs. These devices may be beneficial over anterior plate constructs due to a negligible anterior profile that may reduce dysphagia. The goal of this study is to review the early radiographical and clinical results associated with a low profile integrated intervertebral cage in one- and two-level anterior column fusions. Methods Fusion rates, incidence of hardware failure and deformity correction were assessed through 1 year. Patientreported scores, including VAS for neck pain, and improvements in axial neck pain and neurologic deficit from the preoperative baseline were quantified at 3, 6 and 12 months post-operatively. The incidence of dysphagia was recorded. Results Lordosis and disc space height at the operated levels increased an average of 4.5° and 3.3mm after device placement (p<0.001). Sagittal plane correction was maintained at 1 year. VAS improved from an average of 5.1 preoperatively to 3.1 immediately postoperatively and was maintained at 12 months. At 3 months, patient-reported improvements in axial neck pain and neurologic deficit were 85% and 93%, respectively. Reported improvements were sustained for both parameters at 12 months (77% and 86%, respectively). Fusion was noted in 93% of the operated levels. There were two documented cases of dysphagia that lasted more than 5 weeks, both following two level ACDFs with the test device (3.5% rate of chronic dysphagia). Conclusions The low profile integrated device improved lordosis at the operated level that was maintained at 1 year. Fusion rates with the new device are consistent with ACDF using anterior plating. In combination with improvements in pain and a minimal rate of dysphagia, study findings support the use of integrated interbody spacers for use in one- and two-level ACDF procedures. Level of Evidence Level IV, Case Series.

Comparison of Intervertebral ROM in Multi-Level Cadaveric Lumbar Spines Using Distinct Pure Moment Loading Approaches.

Background Pure-moment loading is the test method of choice for spinal implant evaluation. However, the apparatuses and boundary conditions employed by laboratories in performing spine flexibility testing vary. The purpose of this study was to quantify the differences, if they exist, in intervertebral range of motion (ROM) resulting from different pure-moment loading apparatuses used in two laboratories. Methods Twenty-four (laboratory A) and forty-two (laboratory B) intact L1-S1 specimens were loaded using pure moments (±7.5 Nm) in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB) and axial torsion (AT). At laboratory A, pure moments were applied using a system of cables, pulleys and suspended weights in 1.5 Nm increments. At laboratory B, specimens were loaded in a pneumatic biaxial test frame mounted with counteracting stepper-motor-driven biaxial gimbals. ROM was obtained in both labs using identical optoelectronic systems and compared. Results In FE, total L1-L5 ROM was similar, on average, between the two laboratories (lab A: 37.4° ± 9.1°; lab B: 35.0° ± 8.9°, p=0.289). Larger apparent differences, on average, were noted between labs in AT (lab A: 19.4° ± 7.3°; lab B: 15.7° ± 7.1°, p=0.074), and this finding was significant for combined right and left LB (lab A: 45.5° ± 11.4°; lab B: 35.3° ± 8.5°, p < 0.001). Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first study comparing ROM of multi-segment lumbar spines between laboratories utilizing different apparatuses. The results of this study show that intervertebral ROM in multi-segment lumbar spine constructs are markedly similar in FE loading. Differences in boundary conditions are likely the source of small and sometimes statistically significant differences between the two techniques in LB and AT ROM. The relative merits of each testing strategy with regard to the physiologic conditions that are to be simulated should be considered in the design of a study including LB and AT modes of loading. An understanding of these differences also serves as important information when comparing study results across different laboratories.