Cargando…

Can Posterior Lumbar Instrumentation and Fusion Be Overpowered by Anterior Lumbar Fusion With Hyperlordotic Cages? A Cadaveric Study

STUDY DESIGN: Technical report on cadavers. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate preliminary feasibility and safety of lumbar sagittal alignment correction with anterior hyperlordotic cages used to overpower previous posterior spinal instrumentation. METHODS: Hyperlordotic 30° anterior lumbar interbody fusion (AL...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wigner, Nathan, Kadam, Abhijeet, Saville, Philip, Arlet, Vincent
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5624379/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28989849
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568217701111
Descripción
Sumario:STUDY DESIGN: Technical report on cadavers. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate preliminary feasibility and safety of lumbar sagittal alignment correction with anterior hyperlordotic cages used to overpower previous posterior spinal instrumentation. METHODS: Hyperlordotic 30° anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) cages were inserted in collapsed L5-S1 disc space of 2 cadavers to overpower prior posterior L5-S1 pedicle screws and rod constructs. A distinct technique of opening up the disc space and creation of intersegmental lordosis was employed using a large endplate distractor and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) paddle distractor. Assessment of increase in the intersegmental lordosis (ISL) was made using lateral fluoroscopic imaging. Postprocedural computed tomography (CT) scans were obtained to evaluate any failure of posterior instrumentation and to serve as a surrogate marker for bone quality. RESULTS: The 2 cadavers selected (from an available number of 10) were males: 82 and 84 years of age, respectively. Both had marked L5-S1 disc space collapse. The ISL achieved with hyperlordotic cages was 27.6° for the first cadaver (up from 4.9°) and 23.1° for the second one (up from 4.6°). No obvious screw-rod failure or cutout of instrumentation occurred. Postprocedure CT scans did not reveal any loosening of screws or cutout through endplates. Hounsfield unit values calculated on axial CT cuts were 73.50 (osteoporosis) and 80.70 (osteopenia) respectively for the 2 cadavers. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of the cadaveric experiment, overpowering of posterior instrumentation can be effectively achieved. Biomechanical and clinical studies are indicated to further evaluate the suitability and safety of this technique.