Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 11 items for

  • Author or Editor: Brandon S. Bucklen x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Patrick W. Hitchon, Jonathan M. Mahoney, Jonathan A. Harris, Mir M. Hussain, Noelle F. Klocke, John C. Hao, Doniel Drazin and Brandon S. Bucklen

OBJECTIVE

Posterior reduction with pedicle screws is often used for stabilization of unstable spondylolisthesis to directly reduce misalignment or protect against micromotion while fusion of the affected level occurs. Optimal treatment of spondylolisthesis combines consistent reduction with a reduced risk of construct failure. The authors compared the reduction achieved with a novel anterior integrated spacer with a built-in reduction mechanism (ISR) to the reduction achieved with pedicle screws alone, or in combination with an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) spacer, in a cadaveric grade I spondylolisthesis model.

METHODS

Grade I slip was modeled in 6 cadaveric L5–S1 segments by creation of a partial nucleotomy and facetectomy and application of dynamic cyclic loading. Following the creation of spondylolisthesis, reduction was performed under increasing axial loads, simulating muscle trunk forces between 50 and 157.5 lbs, in the following order: bilateral pedicle screws (BPS), BPS with an anterior spacer (BPS+S), and ISR. Percent reduction and reduction failure load—the axial load at which successful reduction (≥ 50% correction) was not achieved—were recorded along with the failure mechanism. Corrections were evaluated using lateral fluoroscopic images.

RESULTS

The average loads at which BPS and BPS+S failed were 92.5 ± 6.1 and 94.2 ± 13.9 lbs, respectively. The ISR construct failed at a statistically higher load of 140.0 ± 27.1 lbs. Reduction at the largest axial load (157.5 lbs) by the ISR device was tested in 67% (4 of 6) of the specimens, was successful in 33% (2 of 6), and achieved 68.3 ± 37.4% of the available reduction. For the BPS and BPS+S constructs, the largest axial load was 105.0 lbs, with average reductions of 21.3 ± 0.0% (1 of 6) and 32.4 ± 5.7% (3 of 6) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

While both posterior and anterior reduction devices maintained reduction under gravimetric loading, the reduction capacity of the novel anterior ISR device was more effective at greater loads than traditional pedicle screw techniques. Full correction was achieved with pedicle screws, with or without ALIF, but under significantly lower axial loads. The anterior ISR may prove useful when higher reduction forces are required; however, additional clinical studies will be needed to evaluate the effectiveness of anterior devices with built-in reduction mechanisms.

Restricted access

Harry Mushlin, Daina M. Brooks, Joshua Olexa, Bryan J. Ferrick, Stephen Carbine, Gerald M. Hayward II, Brandon S. Bucklen and Charles A. Sansur

OBJECTIVE

The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a known source of low-back pain. Randomized clinical trials support sacroiliac fusion over conservative management for SIJ dysfunction. Clinical studies suggest that SIJ degeneration occurs in the setting of lumbosacral fusions. However, there are few biomechanical studies to provide a good understanding of the effect of lumbosacral fusion on the SIJ. In the present study, researchers performed a biomechanical investigation to discern the effect of pelvic versus SIJ fixation on the SIJ in lumbosacral fusion.

METHODS

Seven fresh-frozen human cadaveric specimens were used. There was one intact specimen and six operative constructs: 1) posterior pedicle screws and rods from T10 to S1 (PS); 2) PS + bilateral iliac screw fixation (BIS); 3) PS + unilateral iliac screw fixation (UIS); 4) PS + UIS + 3 contralateral unilateral SIJ screws (UIS + 3SIJ); 5) PS + 3 unilateral SIJ screws (3SIJ); and 6) PS + 6 bilateral SIJ screws (6SIJ). A custom-built 6 degrees-of-freedom apparatus was used to simulate three bending modes: flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR). Range of motion (ROM) was recorded at L5–S1 and the SIJ.

RESULTS

All six operative constructs had significantly reduced ROM at L5–S1 in all three bending modes compared to that of the intact specimen (p < 0.05). In the FE mode, the BIS construct had a significant reduction in L5–S1 ROM as compared to the other five constructs (p < 0.05). SIJ ROM was greatest in the FE mode compared to LB and AR. Although the FE mode did not show any statistically significant differences in SIJ ROM across the constructs, there were appreciable differences. The PS construct had the highest SIJ ROM. The BIS construct reduced bilateral SIJ ROM by 44% in comparison to the PS construct. The BIS and 6SIJ constructs showed reductions in SIJ ROM nearly equal to those of the PS construct. UIS and 3SIJ showed an appreciable reduction in unfused SIJ ROM compared to PS.

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation demonstrated the effects of various fusion constructs using pelvic and sacroiliac fixation in lumbosacral fusion. This study adds biomechanical evidence of adjacent segment stress in the SIJ in fusion constructs extending to S1. Unilateral pelvic fixation, or SIJ fusion, led to an appreciable but nonsignificant reduction in the ROM of the unfused contralateral SIJ. Bilateral pelvic fixation showed the greatest significant reduction of movement at L5–S1 and was equivalent to bilateral sacroiliac fusion in reducing SIJ motion.