Abstract
In posterior fixation for deformity correction and spinal fusion, there is increasing discussion around auxiliary rods secured to the pedicle screws, sharing the loads, and reducing stresses in the primary rods. Dual-rod, multiaxial screws (DRMAS) provide two rod mounting points on a single screw shaft to allow unique constructs and load-sharing at specific vertebrae. These implants provide surgical flexibility to add auxiliary rods across a pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) or over multiple vertebral levels where higher bending loads are anticipated in primary rods. Other options include fixed-angle devices as multiple rod connectors (MRC) and variable-angle dominoes (VAD) with a single-axis rotation in the connection. The objective in this simulation study was to assess rod bending in adult spinal instrumentation across an osteotomy using constructs with DRMAS, MRC, or VAD multi-rod connections.
The study was performed using computer biomechanical models of two adult patients having undergone posterior instrumented spinal fusion for deformity. The models were patient-specific, incorporating the biomechanics of the spine, have been calibrated to assess deformity correction and intra- and postoperative loads across the instrumented spine. One traditional bilateral-rod construct was used as a control for six multi-rod configurations. Spinal fixation scenarios from T10 through S1 with the PSO at L4 were simulated on each patient-specific model. The multi-rod configurations were bilateral and unilateral DRMAS at L2 through S1 (B-DRMAS and U-DRMAS), bilateral DRMAS at L3 and L5 (Hybrid), bilateral MRC over L3-L5, bilateral and unilateral VAD over L3-L5 (B-VAD and U-VAD). Postoperative gravity plus 8-Nm flexion and extension loads were simulated and bending moments in the rods were computed and compared.
In the simulated control for each case (#1 & #2), average rod bending moments (of the right and left rods) at the PSO level were 6.7Nm & 5.5Nm, respectively, in upright position, 8.8Nm & 7.3Nm in 8-Nm flexion, and 4.6Nm & 3.7Nm in 8-Nm extension. When the primary rods of the multi-rod constructs were normalized to this control, the bending moments in the primary rods of Case #1 & #2 were respectively 57% & 58% (B-DRMAS), 54% & 62% (B-VAD), 60% & 61% (MRC), 72% & 69% (Hybrid), 81% & 70% (U-DRMAS), and 81% & 73% (U-VAD). Overall, the reduction in primary rod bending moments ranged from 19–46% for standing loads. Under simulated 8-Nm functional moments, the primary rod moments were reduced by 18–46% in flexion and 17–48% in extension. More rods and stiffer connections produced the largest reductions for the primary rods, but auxiliary rods had bending moments that varied from 49% lower to 13% higher than the primary ones.
Additional rods through DRMAS, MRC, and VAD connections noticeably reduced the bending loads in the primary rods compared with a standard bilateral-rod construct. Yet, bending loads in the auxiliary rods were higher or lower than those in the primary rods depending on the 3D spinal deformity and stiffness of the auxiliary rod connections. Additional studies and patient-specific analyses are needed to optimize instrumentation parameters that may improve load-sharing in these constructs.
