Summary of Key Points
- •
Spine surgery may destabilize the spine. In such cases, an attempt to stabilize the spinal column should be considered.
- •
Complex spine surgeries due to extensive tumor removal, deformity, and multilevel decompression of degenerative diseases are the main causative factors associated with iatrogenic instability.
- •
Adjacent level degeneration and failure after fusion and fixation procedures should also be considered as postoperative spine destabilization.
- •
Biomechanical factors and measures to avoid iatrogenic destabilization are discussed.
An enhanced understanding of spinal mechanics, spinal cord physiology, anesthesia, critical care, and spinal instrumentation has allowed surgeons to approach the spine ventrally, dorsally, laterally, and circumferentially without excessive morbidity. However, these complex interventions often exaggerate spine instability.
The instability that exists after a spine operation may arise from pathologic (intrinsic) or iatrogenic (surgical) processes. Iatrogenic destabilization can result from a variety of sources, such as the destruction of ligaments, muscles, or bone, and the denervation of muscles ( Table 43-1 ).
Surgery | Reason for Instability | Recommended Management |
---|---|---|
Extensive cervical laminectomy | Tension band destruction Facet joint destruction | Laminoplasty or lateral mass plating plus fusion |
Extensive lumbar laminectomy | Tension band destruction Facet joint destruction | Controversial Possibly dorsolateral fusion Possibly dorsal instrumentation |
Cervical corpectomy | Bony destruction ALL/PLL destruction | Ventral fusion Ventral instrumentation External orthosis |
Thoracolumbar total corpectomy | Bony destruction ALL/PLL destruction | Ventral reconstruction plus ventral instrumentation or dorsal instrumentation |
Corpectomy plus dorsal decompression or total spondylectomy | Extensive bony destruction plus ALL/PLL destruction Facet joint destruction | Circumferential fusion and instrumentation Equal ventral and dorsal instrumentation |
Biomechanical Considerations
Spinal stability is often viewed in terms of support “columns” in the spine. Various systems for evaluating stability consider varying numbers of columns and the fact that the anatomic components of a given column, such as the anterior column, may differ from one system to the next. Also, a column may or may not have a true anatomic correlate.
A method that is commonly used for evaluating stability is the three-column method devised by Denis. The anterior column is the ventral half of the vertebral body and the anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL). The dorsal half of the vertebral body and the posterior longitudinal ligament (PLL) constitute the middle column. The posterior column consists of the facet joints and all ligaments dorsal to the spinal canal.
When using the Denis method, significant instability is likely if two or more columns have suffered substantial injury. The posterior column has true anatomic boundaries, whereas the anterior and middle columns are arbitrarily considered to be halves of a single vertebral body. Many systems for evaluating stability have been devised, but the Denis method is an example of a system that is easy to use and widely accepted for clinical application. It should be noted that this is a simplistic model of instability and its practical use has been questioned.
Ligamentous Disruption
Iatrogenic ligamentous instability can be assessed by intraoperative traction or distraction maneuvers, such as distraction, application of vertebral body spreaders, and implant manipulation. These maneuvers may help determine whether an instrumented fusion is necessary. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is currently the most widespread diagnostic tool for determining ligamentous instability.
Ventral Surgery
The ALL and the PLL, as well as the annulus fibrosus, contribute significantly to the stability of the spine. The PLL is weaker than the ALL and is often intentionally destroyed during dorsal, ventral, or lateral spine surgery. However, the ALL is often not totally disrupted, even with a wide ventral exposure. A strong and wide ligament, the ALL provides a significant proportion of spinal stability in extension. This function may be considered as a tension band that limits extension. As a result, ventral decompressive spine surgery (e.g., corpectomy), which adequately decompresses the dural sac, generally causes a disruption of the PLL, with preservation of at least a portion of the ALL. The width of the PLL significantly narrows in the middle portions of the vertebral body, making it susceptible to surgical disruption. In conjunction with existing bony disruption, surgical decompression usually causes significant instability of the spine. The extent of this destabilization can be assessed via intraoperative manipulation, such as vertebral body distraction. If significant instability is iatrogenically created, an interbody strut graft is necessary, with or without supplementation by instrumentation. The PLL limits flexion and distraction.
Dorsal Surgery
Resection of the interspinous ligaments may lead to instability. Although the interspinous ligaments are relatively weak, their long moment arm (i.e., distance from the instantaneous axis of rotation to the ligament attachment site) provides a mechanical advantage with regard to their function as a tension band. The capsular ligaments are strong. Although they function via a short moment arm, their relative strength allows them to provide a significant stabilizing effect, if they are intact.
Bone Destruction
Ventral Surgery
Bone destruction and additional surgical bone removal have a significant impact on spinal stability. Both the amount of vertebral body destruction and its location play an important role in the surgical destabilization process ( Fig. 43-1 ). The first issue is the extent of ventral bony destruction. A complete vertebrectomy causes an obvious instability (see Table 43-1 ). The extent of instability is closely related to the amount of bone removed.
White and Panjabi used a three-column model to explain the effects of element disruption on spinal column stability. To determine the effect of a partial vertebral body resection on spinal stability, Benzel used a hypothetical design that divides the vertebral body into 27 equal, small cubes ( Fig. 43-2 ). In this regard, resection of the ventral portion of the vertebral body affects spinal stability more than a corresponding resection of the middle or dorsal portion of the vertebral body ( Fig. 43-3 ), because the largest force to which the spine is subjected is that of flexion. The more ventral portion of the vertebral body is farther from the instantaneous axis of rotation, and it therefore exerts its resistance through a longer moment arm in resisting flexion. Also, resection of the middle horizontal section of the vertebral body affects stability more than does resection in the middle vertical sections ( Fig. 43-4 ).
Minimizing bone removal helps decrease postoperative instability. To attain this goal, vertebral body resection in cervical corpectomy should be carefully determined. In this regard, oblique corpectomy is an approach that does not significantly interfere with the stability of the spine. This approach protects the ventral portion of the vertebral body but sacrifices the dorsal and lateral aspects (see Fig. 43-1B ).
As an aside, the uncovertebral joints add stability during extension, lateral bending, and torsion. In general, if the (1) ALL, (2) ventral section of the vertebral body, (3) dorsal column integrity, and (4) dorsal column ligaments remain intact, a significant instability does not develop.
Dorsal Surgery
A laminectomy can cause clinical significant instability. The frequency of iatrogenic instability is proportional to the width of the laminectomy. Often, the extent of the injury is not readily apparent shortly after surgery. The prediction of its subsequent occurrence is even less obvious. If a ventral (vertebral body) lesion already exists, the incidence of postlaminectomy kyphosis is even higher.
Laminectomy often creates distortion of the dura mater and spinal cord, with flexion and distraction over the ventral fulcrum ( Fig. 43-5 ). Even in the absence of the ventral pathology, the disruption of the laminae, facet joints, and dorsal ligamentous complex may result in progressive deformity, the so-called postlaminectomy kyphosis ( Fig. 43-6 ). Postlaminectomy kyphosis occurs more commonly in the more mobile portion of the spine—the cervical spine. Laminoplasty may preserve a portion of the dorsal tension band and thereby diminish the instability observed after laminectomy. Another alternative that minimizes the destabilizing effect of laminectomy is the addition of a stabilization strategy such as dorsal fusion or external orthosis. There exists, however, reports suggesting that laminoplasty may not prevent postoperative kyphosis, especially in pediatric patients.
In summary, three important issues should be addressed during decompressive laminectomy: (1) the presence, or absence, of ventral spinal instability; (2) the extent of resected laminae and facet joints as well as the extent of ligamentous disruption; and (3) the location of the laminectomy (i.e., cervical, thoracic, or lumbar spine). The cervical spine is more prone to instability after laminectomy.
The contribution of the facet joints to dorsal column stability is very important. With axial loading, the anterior and middle columns transmit only 36% of the applied load, whereas each pillar (facet) transmits 32% of the total applied load. Therefore, regardless of the region of the spine involved, excessive facet joint resection can result in instability. In the cervical spine, the tolerable limit of resection is one third to one half of the facet joint. In the lumbar spine, facet resection may often result in glacial instability. However, the value of fusion and instrumentation after partial facetectomies for spinal stenosis is controversial.
The shape and angulation of the facet joints are also important. A ventral translational deformity is more likely to result if vertically oriented joints and a hyperlordotic posture are present. The L4 and L5 facet joints are sagittally oriented, whereas the L5-S1 joints are coronally oriented ( Fig. 43-7 ). Therefore, the L5-S1 joints resist translational deformity, whereas the L4-5 joints can easily glide on a sagittal plane. Degenerative listhesis frequently involves this level.
Clinical Considerations
The major indications for spine surgery are decompression and stabilization. Perhaps the most important indication is decompression. Whether the decompression is ventral or dorsal, it decreases spinal stability.
Trauma Surgery
Because trauma itself causes instability, additional iatrogenic instability caused by a decompression operation may be catastrophic. Therefore, most operations for spine trauma include a stabilization component.
The site of decompression (ventral versus dorsal) is usually dictated by the type and location of the pathology. Spine stabilization can also be achieved from the same orientation.
Tumor Surgery
An important issue that the spine surgeon cannot avoid is the iatrogenic instability created by radical tumor resection surgery. The surgical treatment of spinal tumors was traditionally accomplished predominantly via laminectomy, despite the fact that the neural compression was often ventral to the spinal cord. However, laminectomy was frequently ineffective. Ventral surgery is often the procedure of choice for treating most bone tumors of the spine. Because the pathology in most patients with most metastatic tumors lies ventral to the spinal canal, attempts at tumor resection can cause a loss of ventral spinal integrity.
Tumors involving both ventral and dorsal elements cause even greater instability. For oncologic tumor surgery, extramarginal resection of bone tumors of the spine is desirable. Although the spinal cord and nerve roots do not allow such a resection in many instances, there is an increasing trend toward accomplishing total spondylectomies using only a dorsal approach, or by circumferential surgery. Because the iatrogenic destabilization of the spine is so significant in these cases, radical measures to reconstruct and stabilize the spine are mandatory.
Preoperatively, the extent of tumor spread is the main determinant of stability. Instability is often not the sole reason for operation. The extent of neurologic deficit, the biology of the tumor, its radiosensitivity, and its sensitivity to chemotherapy are also important reasons. In selected cases, radiotherapy of a radiosensitive tumor and external bracing may be suitable.
Degenerative Spine Surgery
Cervical spondylotic myelopathy is often treated via a decompressive operation. Ventral and dorsal operations both may cause significant iatrogenic spine destabilization. This is similarly true for the thoracic and lumbar spine.
Ventral decompressive surgery of the cervical spine causes bony destruction and also some form of ligamentous disruption. The PLL is intentionally removed during ventral osteophyte excision for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. In this case, interbody strut graft stability, or “clamp down,” a phenomenon that would have been provided by an intact ligament, is not realized. Ventral cervical plates can help resist the distractive forces caused by the disruption of ligamentous resistance.
The annulus fibrosus contributes to the spinal stability in a similar manner as the PLL and ALL. Its disruption in degenerative conditions may cause segmental instability.
Adjacent-Level Spondylosis
It is common to observe degenerative changes above or below the level of a multilevel fusion. This type of instability is obviously iatrogenic. To avoid this outcome, the use of more flexible (dynamic) fixation devices has been proposed. Short-segment fixation and fusion may minimize the incidence of this complication. Another technique for dealing with this problem is to create a “transitional” level by using instrumentation that is less rigid at the first segment adjacent to the fused segments. For example, an L3 burst fracture might be treated by the use of rigid screw instrumentation, along with bony fusion from L2 to L4. The “transitional” segment might then be created by the use of laminar hooks (hooks are less rigid than screws) at L1.
Segmental fixation with the use of pedicle fixation systems can be rigid. Although increasing rigidity may improve fusion rates, it also increases the rate of degeneration of adjacent segments. Rahm and Hall have reported an incidence of adjacent-segment degeneration of 35% in cases with lumbar fusion and internal fixation. They also noted that the degeneration was associated with increasing patient age, use of interbody fusion, and worsening of clinical results with time.
Lumbar spine fusion remains a pillar of degenerative lumbar spine surgical procedures. However, lumbar spine fusion surgery may increase the loads on the functional lumbar segments and cause advanced disc degeneration, facet joint arthritis, and an increase in intradiscal pressures in adjacent segments.
Adjacent-level degeneration and adjacent-level disease (both forms of adjacent-segment degeneration [ASD]) are different entities. In a study by Sugawara and colleagues, asymptomatic adjacent-disc degeneration was detected in 50% of the patients according to their measurement methods. However, symptomatic adjacent-disc degeneration occurred in 5% of the patients, and only 2% required additional surgery. ASD may also cause a worsening of the clinical outcomes, especially with the ASD after multiple-segment fusion. The most sensitive technique for evaluating ASD is MRI.
Risk Factors for Adjacent-Segment Degeneration
Type of Surgery.
Fusion surgery is associated with a greater incidence of adjacent-level problems than others. The location and extension of the fusion are also important. Patients who underwent fusions of the L5-S1 segment showed a significantly lower risk of ASD than patients with L4-5 fusions (20% versus 46%). Compared with L4-5 fusions, bisegmental L4-S1 fusions were associated with a similar trend with a lower risk of ASD (24%).
Because fusion may precipitate adjacent-level problems, the recommendation may be to not perform multiple-segment fusion in cases such as degenerative lumbar deformity. One retrospective study found that even a cervical posterior foraminotomy is associated with a low rate of same- and adjacent-segment disease (4.9%). Adjacent-segment disease following expansive lumbar laminoplasty was observed to occur in 11% of patients, who showed degeneration at the segment adjacent to the laminoplasty.
Type of Fusion.
It is not yet known whether the type of fusion affects adjacent-level degeneration. A randomized study with a very long follow-up showed no effect of anterior column support on the ASD after lumbar spinal fusion.
Similar adjacent-level degenerations happen after ventral cervical fusion. In a cadaveric study, a simulated C5-7 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) caused a significant increase in intradiscal pressure and segmental motion in the rostral adjacent level during physiologic motion. After ventral cervical plate fusion, adjacent-level degenerative changes commonly occur, which may cause an ossification on the upper and lower ends of the plate. Some of these postoperative radiographic changes may be related to the technique used. This ossification can be avoided by using the shortest possible plate so that the plate does not extend into adjacent healthy discs.
The so-called adjacent-level ossification after ventral cervical plating is a termed heterotopic ossification. With heterotopic ossification, the new bone forms in soft tissues that do not ossify under normal conditions. It may occur after total joint arthroplasty, trauma, and spinal cord injury. It starts to form 2 to 12 weeks after surgery and fully matures 1 to 2 years after its first appearance.
Osteoporosis.
Adjacent-level degenerative changes may also occur in patients with osteoporotic vertebral body fractures after augmentation with vertebroplasty. As a long-term complication, failure of the adjacent vertebral body may develop. However, a biomechanical study has shown that there is no benefit of prophylactic vertebral reinforcement adjacent to vertebroplasty.
Lordotic Angles.
Adjacent-segment motion may also change with lordotic angles. A cadaveric study found a significant increase in adjacent-segment motion with the achievement of a modest increase in lordosis that is not observed with a greater increase in lordosis.
Avoiding Adjacent-Level Disease
Many implants have been designed to lower the risk of adjacent-level degeneration and related disease. Artificial discs, pedicle-based dynamic implants, and ligamentoplasty implants are the main groups of these devices, and they are known as motion preservation implants.
Artificial Discs.
Because these discs have special complications and require ventral surgery in the lumbar spine, their use has not increased. Lumbar artificial discs have been shown to preserve the loads across the implanted and adjacent segments. In a finite element analysis, Charité artificial disc placement slightly increased motion at the implanted level, with a resultant increase in facet loading when compared with the adjacent segments, whereas the motions and loads decreased at the adjacent levels.
In vitro investigation of cervical adjacent-level intradiscal pressures following a total disc replacement arthroplasty has shown that it did not change significantly after arthroplasty in accordance to the fusion.
Pedicle-Based Systems and Ligamentoplasty.
The Dynesys system (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN) is a prototype of these systems; it has reportedly provided substantial stability in cases of degenerative spinal pathologies.
However, Rohlmann and coworkers have used a finite element analysis to compare the effects of bilateral dorsal dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine. They have demonstrated that a dynamic implant does not necessarily reduce axial spinal loads compared to an uninstrumented spine. Hence, one might criticize pedicle-based dynamic systems as not being truly dynamic.
In a retrospective study, ligamentoplasty, a motion-preserving surgery, has caused less ASD (9.2%) than posterior lumbar interbody fusion (14.1%) and dorsolateral fusion (13.3%).
Postlaminectomy Instability
Although a dorsal approach is convenient and appropriate for most spine lesions, it causes a significant defect in the structural integrity of the posterior column as well as a loss of the dorsal tension band. After cervical laminectomy in children, the incidence of kyphosis is very high. The important factors that affect cervical instability after laminectomy are (1) patient’s age, (2) number of laminae excised, (3) curvature of the cervical spine, and (4) degree of facet joint violation. Although the relative incidence of instability after cervical laminectomy is controversial, there is a tendency to not perform multilevel laminectomies in pediatric patients and to provide additional stabilization measures in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing laminectomy. In patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy, these measures may either be a laminoplasty or fixation (e.g., lateral mass plating) and fusion after laminectomy. In the case of significant posterior or anterior longitudinal ligament ossification, laminectomy without fusion may be employed. There is even a report describing spontaneous stabilization of postlaminectomy kyphosis after anterior longitudinal ligament ossification.
There is also a trend to perform microendoscopic decompressions for cervical spondylotic myelopathy to avoid instability. Cervical kyphotic deformity potentially leads to adjacent segment degeneration, and during decompression of the narrowed canal, the surgeon should always take into consideration the cervical sagittal alignment.
Extensive lumbar laminectomy is often necessary for patients with spinal stenosis. Because of the nature of the compression, this procedure often includes a partial facetectomy. Although the exact incidence of instability after extensive lumbar laminectomy for lumbar stenosis is not well known, some surgeons have suggested the use of bilateral hemilaminectomies and partial facetectomies, without destruction of interspinous ligaments, while preserving most of the lamina and spinous process. Performing a fusion, with or without instrumentation, is controversial, however.
Bone Graft Harvesting
Instability related to bone graft harvesting is a rare but important problem. It was first reported in 1962 by Lichtblau, who observed that dorsal iliac crest graft harvesting can cause dislocation of the sacroiliac joint.