Biomechanical assessment of the effect of sublaminar band tensioning on lumbar motion

View More View Less
  • 1 Departments of Neurosurgery and
  • | 2 Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics; and
  • | 3 Iowa Neuroscience Institute, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
USD  $45.00
USD  $376.00
USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online Sign in

OBJECTIVE

Adjacent-segment disease (ASD) proximal to lumbosacral fusion is assumed to result from increased stress and motion that extends above or below the fusion construct. Sublaminar bands (SBs) have been shown to potentially mitigate stresses in deformity constructs. A similar application of SBs in lumbar fusions is not well described yet may potentially mitigate against ASD.

METHODS

Eight fresh-frozen human cadaveric spine specimens were instrumented with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cages at L3–4 and L4–5, and pedicle screws from L3 to S1. Bilateral SBs were applied at L2 and tightened around the rods extending above the L3 pedicle screws. After being mounted on a testing frame, the spines were loaded at L1 to 6 Nm in all 3 planes, i.e., flexion/extension, right and left lateral bending, and right and left axial rotation. Motion and intradiscal pressures (IDPs) at L2–3 were measured for 5 conditions: intact, instrumentation (L3–S1), band tension (BT) 30%, BT 50%, and BT 100%.

RESULTS

There was significant increase in motion at L2–3 with L3–S1 instrumentation compared with the intact spine in flexion/extension (median 8.78°, range 4.07°–10.81°, vs median 7.27°, range 1.63°–9.66°; p = 0.016). When compared with instrumentation, BT 100% reduced motion at L2–3 in flexion/extension (median 8.78°, range 4.07°–10.81°, vs median 3.61°, range 1.11°–9.39°; p < 0.001) and lateral bending (median 6.58°, range 3.67°–8.59°, vs median 5.62°, range 3.28°–6.74°; p = 0.001). BT 50% reduced motion at L2–3 only in flexion/extension when compared with instrumentation (median 8.78°, range 4.07°–10.81°, vs median 5.91°, range 2.54°–10.59°; p = 0.027). There was no significant increase of motion at L1–2 with banding when compared with instrumentation, although an increase was seen from the intact spine with BT 100% in flexion/extension (median 5.14°, range 2.47°–9.73°, vs median 7.34°, range 4.22°–9.89°; p = 0.005). BT 100% significantly reduced IDP at L2–3 from 25.07 psi (range 2.41–48.08 psi) before tensioning to 19.46 psi (range −2.35 to 29.55 psi) after tensioning (p = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

In this model, the addition of L2 SBs reduced motion and IDP at L2–3 after the L3–S1 instrumentation. There was no significant increase in motion at L1–2 in response to band tensioning compared with instrumentation alone. The application of SBs may have a clinical application in reducing the incidence of ASD.

ABBREVIATIONS

ASD = adjacent-segment disease; BMD = bone mineral density; BT = band tension; df = degrees of freedom; IDP = intradiscal pressure; SB = sublaminar band; TLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
USD  $376.00
USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Virk SS, Niedermeier S, Yu E, Khan SN. Adjacent segment disease. Orthopedics. 2014;37(8):547555.

  • 2

    Saavedra-Pozo FM, Deusdara RAM, Benzel EC. Adjacent segment disease perspective and review of the literature. Ochsner J. 2014;14(1):7883.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Scemama C, Magrino B, Gillet P, Guigui P. Risk of adjacent-segment disease requiring surgery after short lumbar fusion: results of the French Spine Surgery Society Series. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;25(1):4651.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Jiang S, Li W. Biomechanical study of proximal adjacent segment degeneration after posterior lumbar interbody fusion and fixation: a finite element analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):135.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Chou PH, Lin HH, An HS, Liu KY, Su WR, Lin CL. Could the topping-off technique be the preventive strategy against adjacent segment disease after pedicle screw-based fusion in lumbar degenerative diseases? A systematic review. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:4385620.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Bess S, Harris JE, Turner AWL, et al. The effect of posterior polyester tethers on the biomechanics of proximal junctional kyphosis: a finite element analysis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;26(1):125133.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Viswanathan VK, Ganguly R, Minnema AJ, et al. Biomechanical assessment of proximal junctional semi-rigid fixation in long-segment thoracolumbar constructs. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;30(2):184192.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Viswanathan VK, Minnema AJ, Viljoen S, Farhadi HF. Sublaminar banding as an adjunct to pedicle screw-rod constructs: a review and technical note on novel hybrid constructs in spinal deformity surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;30(6):807813.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Therkildsen J, Nissen L, Jørgensen HS, et al. Thoracic bone mineral density derived from cardiac CT is associated with greater fracture rate. Radiology. 2020;296(3):499508.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Lee JC, Choi SW. Adjacent segment pathology after lumbar spinal fusion. Asian Spine J. 2015;9(5):807817.

  • 11

    Desai SK, Sayama C, Vener D, et al. The feasibility and safety of using sublaminar polyester bands in hybrid spinal constructs in children and transitional adults for neuromuscular scoliosis. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2015;15(3):328337.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Polirsztok E, Gavaret M, Gsell T, et al. Sublaminar bands: are they safe?. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(7):14411449.

  • 13

    Yagi M, Suzuki S, Okada E, et al. Sublaminar tethers significantly reduce the risk of proximal junctional failure in surgery for severe adult spinal deformity: a propensity score–matched analysis. Clin Spine Surg. 2022;35(5):E496E503.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Wang H, Ma L, Yang D, et al. Incidence and risk factors of adjacent segment disease following posterior decompression and instrumented fusion for degenerative lumbar disorders. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(5):e6032.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Abode-Iyamah K, Kim SB, Grosland N, et al. Spinal motion and intradiscal pressure measurements before and after lumbar spine instrumentation with titanium or PEEK rods. J Clin Neurosci. 2014;21(4):651655.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 424 424 42
Full Text Views 81 81 9
PDF Downloads 57 57 13
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0