Browse

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • User-accessible content x
  • By Author: Reyes, Phillip M. x
  • By Author: Theodore, Nicholas x
  • By Author: Perez-Orribo, Luis x
Clear All
Full access

Nestor G. Rodriguez-Martinez, Luis Perez-Orribo, Samuel Kalb, Phillip M. Reyes, Anna G. U. S. Newcomb, Jeremy Hughes, Nicholas Theodore and Neil R. Crawford

OBJECT

The effects of obesity on lumbar biomechanics are not fully understood. The aims of this study were to analyze the biomechanical differences between cadaveric L4–5 lumbar spine segments from a large group of nonobese (body mass index [BMI] < 30 kg/m2) and obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) donors and to determine if there were any radiological differences between spines from nonobese and obese donors using MR imaging.

METHODS

A total of 168 intact L4–5 spinal segments (87 males and 81 females) were tested using pure-moment loading, simulating flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Axial compression tests were performed on 38 of the specimens. Sex, age, and BMI were analyzed with biomechanical parameters using 1-way ANOVA, Pearson correlation, and multiple regression analyses. MR images were obtained in 12 specimens (8 from obese and 4 from nonobese donors) using a 3-T MR scanner.

RESULTS

The segments from the obese male group allowed significantly greater range of motion (ROM) than those from the nonobese male group during axial rotation (p = 0.018), while there was no difference between segments from obese and nonobese females (p = 0.687). There were no differences in ROM between spines from obese and nonobese donors during flexion-extension or lateral bending for either sex. In the nonobese population, the ROM during axial rotation was significantly greater for females than for males (p = 0.009). There was no significant difference between sexes in the obese population (p = 0.892). Axial compressive stiffness was significantly greater for the obese than the nonobese population for both the female-only group and the entire study group (p < 0.01); however, the difference was nonsignificant in the male population (p = 0.304). Correlation analysis confirmed a significant negative correlation between BMI and resistance to deformation during axial compression in the female group (R = −0.65, p = 0.004), with no relationship in the male group (R = 0.03, p = 0.9). There was also a significant negative correlation between ROM during flexion-extension and BMI for the female group (R = −0.38, p = 0.001), with no relationship for the male group (R = 0.06, p = 0.58). Qualitative analysis using MR imaging indicated greater facet degeneration and a greater incidence of disc herniations in the obese group than in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on flexibility and compression tests, lumbar spinal segments from obese versus nonobese donors seem to behave differently, biomechanically, during axial rotation and compression. The differences are more pronounced in women. MR imaging suggests that these differences may be due to greater facet degeneration and an increased amount of disc herniation in the spines from obese individuals.

Full access

Nestor G. Rodriguez-Martinez, Sam Safavi-Abbasi, Luis Perez-Orribo, Anna G. U. S. Newcomb, Phillip M. Reyes, Galyna Loughran, Nicholas Theodore and Neil R. Crawford

OBJECT

The Universal Clamp Spinal Fixation System (UC) is a novel sublaminar connection for the spine that is currently used in conjunction with pedicle screws at the thoracic levels for the correction of scoliosis. This device allows the surgeon to attach rods and incorporate a pedicle screw construction. The flexible composition of the UC should provide flexibility intermediate to the uninstrumented spine and an all-screw construct. This hypothesis was tested in vitro using nondestructive flexibility testing of human cadaveric spine segments.

METHODS

Six unembalmed human cadaveric thoracic spine segments from T-3 to T-11 were used. The specimens were tested under the following conditions: 1) intact; 2) after bilateral screws were placed at T4-T10 and interconnected with longitudinal rods; 3) after placement of a hybrid construction with screws at T-4, T-7, and T-10 with an interconnecting rod on one side and screws at T-4 and T-10 with the UC at T5–9 on the contralateral side; (4) after bilateral screws were placed at T-4 and T-10 and interconnected with rods and bilateral UC were placed at T5–9; and 5) after bilateral screws at T-4 and T-10 were placed and interconnected with rods and bilateral sublaminar cables were placed at T5–9. Pure moments of 6.0 Nm were applied while optoelectronically recording 3D angular motion.

RESULTS

Bilateral UC placement and bilateral sublaminar cables both resulted in a significantly greater range of motion than bilateral pedicle screws during lateral bending and axial rotation, but not during flexion or extension. There were no differences in stability between bilateral UC and bilateral cables. The construct with limited screws on one side and UC contralaterally showed comparable stability to bilateral UC and bilateral cables.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support using the UC as a therapeutic option for spinal stabilization because it allows comparable stability to the sublaminar cables and provides flexibility intermediate to that of the uninstrumented spine and an all-screw construct. Equivalent stability of the hybrid, bilateral UC, and bilateral cable constructs indicates that 6-level UC provides stability comparable to that of a limited (3-point) pedicle screw-rod construct.