Is lateral stabilization enough in thoracolumbar burst fracture reconstruction? A biomechanical investigation

Ripul R. Panchal, Erika A. Matheis, Manasa Gudipally, Mir M. Hussain, Kee D Kim, Brandon S. Bucklen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background context Traditional reconstruction for burst fractures involves columnar support with posterior fixation at one or two levels cephalad/caudad; however, some surgeons choose to only stabilize the vertebral column. Purpose The aim was to distinguish biomechanical differences in stability between a burst fracture stabilized through a lateral approach using corpectomy spacers of different end plate sizes with and without integrated screws and with and without posterior fixation. Study design/Setting This was an in vitro biomechanical study assessing thoracolumbar burst fracture stabilization. Methods Six human spines (T11-L3) were tested on a six-degrees-of-freedom simulator enabling unconstrained range of motion (ROM) at ±6 N·m in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) after a simulated burst fracture at L1. Expandable corpectomy spacers with/without integrated screws (Fi/F; FORTIFY Integrated/FORTIFY; Globus Medical, Inc., Audubon, PA, USA) were tested with different end plate sizes (21×23 mm, 22×40-50 mm). Posterior instrumentation (PI) via bilateral pedicle screws and rods was used one level above and one level below the burst fracture. Lateral plate (LP) fixation was tested. Devices were tested in the following order: intact; Fi<inf>21×23</inf>; Fi<inf>21×23</inf>+PI; F<inf>21×23</inf>+PI+LP; F<inf>21×23</inf>+LP; F<inf>22×40-50</inf>+LP; F<inf>22×40-50</inf>+PI+LP; Fi<inf>22×40-50</inf>+PI; Fi<inf>22×40-50</inf>. Results In FE and AR, constructs without PI showed no significant difference (p<.05) in stability compared with intact. In LB, F<inf>22×40-50</inf>+LP showed a significant increase in stability relative to intact, but no other construct without PI reached significance. In FE and LB, circumferential constructs were significantly more stable than intact. In AR, no construct showed significant differences in motion when compared with the intact condition. Conclusions Constructs without posterior fixation were the least stable of all tested constructs. Circumferential fixation provided greater stability in FE and LB than lateral fixation and intact. Axial rotation showed no significant differences in any construct compared with the intact state.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2247-2253
Number of pages7
JournalSpine Journal
Volume15
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2015

Fingerprint

Spine
Articular Range of Motion
Equipment and Supplies
Pedicle Screws
In Vitro Techniques
Surgeons

Keywords

  • Biomechanics
  • Burst fracture
  • Range of motion
  • Stabilization
  • Thoracolumbar
  • Trauma

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Surgery

Cite this

Is lateral stabilization enough in thoracolumbar burst fracture reconstruction? A biomechanical investigation. / Panchal, Ripul R.; Matheis, Erika A.; Gudipally, Manasa; Hussain, Mir M.; Kim, Kee D; Bucklen, Brandon S.

In: Spine Journal, Vol. 15, No. 10, 01.10.2015, p. 2247-2253.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Panchal, Ripul R. ; Matheis, Erika A. ; Gudipally, Manasa ; Hussain, Mir M. ; Kim, Kee D ; Bucklen, Brandon S. / Is lateral stabilization enough in thoracolumbar burst fracture reconstruction? A biomechanical investigation. In: Spine Journal. 2015 ; Vol. 15, No. 10. pp. 2247-2253.
@article{92bdab98992d40c4a35265a530eae16f,
title = "Is lateral stabilization enough in thoracolumbar burst fracture reconstruction? A biomechanical investigation",
abstract = "Background context Traditional reconstruction for burst fractures involves columnar support with posterior fixation at one or two levels cephalad/caudad; however, some surgeons choose to only stabilize the vertebral column. Purpose The aim was to distinguish biomechanical differences in stability between a burst fracture stabilized through a lateral approach using corpectomy spacers of different end plate sizes with and without integrated screws and with and without posterior fixation. Study design/Setting This was an in vitro biomechanical study assessing thoracolumbar burst fracture stabilization. Methods Six human spines (T11-L3) were tested on a six-degrees-of-freedom simulator enabling unconstrained range of motion (ROM) at ±6 N·m in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) after a simulated burst fracture at L1. Expandable corpectomy spacers with/without integrated screws (Fi/F; FORTIFY Integrated/FORTIFY; Globus Medical, Inc., Audubon, PA, USA) were tested with different end plate sizes (21×23 mm, 22×40-50 mm). Posterior instrumentation (PI) via bilateral pedicle screws and rods was used one level above and one level below the burst fracture. Lateral plate (LP) fixation was tested. Devices were tested in the following order: intact; Fi21×23; Fi21×23+PI; F21×23+PI+LP; F21×23+LP; F22×40-50+LP; F22×40-50+PI+LP; Fi22×40-50+PI; Fi22×40-50. Results In FE and AR, constructs without PI showed no significant difference (p<.05) in stability compared with intact. In LB, F22×40-50+LP showed a significant increase in stability relative to intact, but no other construct without PI reached significance. In FE and LB, circumferential constructs were significantly more stable than intact. In AR, no construct showed significant differences in motion when compared with the intact condition. Conclusions Constructs without posterior fixation were the least stable of all tested constructs. Circumferential fixation provided greater stability in FE and LB than lateral fixation and intact. Axial rotation showed no significant differences in any construct compared with the intact state.",
keywords = "Biomechanics, Burst fracture, Range of motion, Stabilization, Thoracolumbar, Trauma",
author = "Panchal, {Ripul R.} and Matheis, {Erika A.} and Manasa Gudipally and Hussain, {Mir M.} and Kim, {Kee D} and Bucklen, {Brandon S.}",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.spinee.2015.05.020",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "2247--2253",
journal = "Spine Journal",
issn = "1529-9430",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is lateral stabilization enough in thoracolumbar burst fracture reconstruction? A biomechanical investigation

AU - Panchal, Ripul R.

AU - Matheis, Erika A.

AU - Gudipally, Manasa

AU - Hussain, Mir M.

AU - Kim, Kee D

AU - Bucklen, Brandon S.

PY - 2015/10/1

Y1 - 2015/10/1

N2 - Background context Traditional reconstruction for burst fractures involves columnar support with posterior fixation at one or two levels cephalad/caudad; however, some surgeons choose to only stabilize the vertebral column. Purpose The aim was to distinguish biomechanical differences in stability between a burst fracture stabilized through a lateral approach using corpectomy spacers of different end plate sizes with and without integrated screws and with and without posterior fixation. Study design/Setting This was an in vitro biomechanical study assessing thoracolumbar burst fracture stabilization. Methods Six human spines (T11-L3) were tested on a six-degrees-of-freedom simulator enabling unconstrained range of motion (ROM) at ±6 N·m in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) after a simulated burst fracture at L1. Expandable corpectomy spacers with/without integrated screws (Fi/F; FORTIFY Integrated/FORTIFY; Globus Medical, Inc., Audubon, PA, USA) were tested with different end plate sizes (21×23 mm, 22×40-50 mm). Posterior instrumentation (PI) via bilateral pedicle screws and rods was used one level above and one level below the burst fracture. Lateral plate (LP) fixation was tested. Devices were tested in the following order: intact; Fi21×23; Fi21×23+PI; F21×23+PI+LP; F21×23+LP; F22×40-50+LP; F22×40-50+PI+LP; Fi22×40-50+PI; Fi22×40-50. Results In FE and AR, constructs without PI showed no significant difference (p<.05) in stability compared with intact. In LB, F22×40-50+LP showed a significant increase in stability relative to intact, but no other construct without PI reached significance. In FE and LB, circumferential constructs were significantly more stable than intact. In AR, no construct showed significant differences in motion when compared with the intact condition. Conclusions Constructs without posterior fixation were the least stable of all tested constructs. Circumferential fixation provided greater stability in FE and LB than lateral fixation and intact. Axial rotation showed no significant differences in any construct compared with the intact state.

AB - Background context Traditional reconstruction for burst fractures involves columnar support with posterior fixation at one or two levels cephalad/caudad; however, some surgeons choose to only stabilize the vertebral column. Purpose The aim was to distinguish biomechanical differences in stability between a burst fracture stabilized through a lateral approach using corpectomy spacers of different end plate sizes with and without integrated screws and with and without posterior fixation. Study design/Setting This was an in vitro biomechanical study assessing thoracolumbar burst fracture stabilization. Methods Six human spines (T11-L3) were tested on a six-degrees-of-freedom simulator enabling unconstrained range of motion (ROM) at ±6 N·m in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) after a simulated burst fracture at L1. Expandable corpectomy spacers with/without integrated screws (Fi/F; FORTIFY Integrated/FORTIFY; Globus Medical, Inc., Audubon, PA, USA) were tested with different end plate sizes (21×23 mm, 22×40-50 mm). Posterior instrumentation (PI) via bilateral pedicle screws and rods was used one level above and one level below the burst fracture. Lateral plate (LP) fixation was tested. Devices were tested in the following order: intact; Fi21×23; Fi21×23+PI; F21×23+PI+LP; F21×23+LP; F22×40-50+LP; F22×40-50+PI+LP; Fi22×40-50+PI; Fi22×40-50. Results In FE and AR, constructs without PI showed no significant difference (p<.05) in stability compared with intact. In LB, F22×40-50+LP showed a significant increase in stability relative to intact, but no other construct without PI reached significance. In FE and LB, circumferential constructs were significantly more stable than intact. In AR, no construct showed significant differences in motion when compared with the intact condition. Conclusions Constructs without posterior fixation were the least stable of all tested constructs. Circumferential fixation provided greater stability in FE and LB than lateral fixation and intact. Axial rotation showed no significant differences in any construct compared with the intact state.

KW - Biomechanics

KW - Burst fracture

KW - Range of motion

KW - Stabilization

KW - Thoracolumbar

KW - Trauma

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84942504217&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84942504217&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.05.020

DO - 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.05.020

M3 - Article

C2 - 26008679

AN - SCOPUS:84942504217

VL - 15

SP - 2247

EP - 2253

JO - Spine Journal

JF - Spine Journal

SN - 1529-9430

IS - 10

ER -