Summary of Key Points
- •
Construct design is a process that formulates a specific blueprint for an orderly and thoughtful assembly of implantable spinal instrumentation, designed to correct instability, deformity, or both of the spinal column.
- •
Spinal implants may be considered as internal supports that immobilize the spine until bony fusion occurs.
- •
Goal of spinal instrumentation is immediate restoration of stability, indirect decompression of neural structures, and correction of deformity.
- •
Creating a preoperative plan or blueprint ensures a definitive plan and saves time in the operating room.
- •
Bone quality is an important factor that influences stability of spinal implants.
Construct design is a process that formulates a specific blueprint for an orderly and thoughtful assembly of implantable spinal instrumentation, designed to correct instability, deformity, or both of the spinal column. Construct design requires a specific understanding of the deformity or instability and the biomechanical forces acting on the pathologic alignment. An understanding of corrective forces and where they must be applied also is required. A keen knowledge of the anatomy and pathoanatomy is required to preserve neurologic function and avoid adjacent segment injury. Although skillful assembly of the mechanical construct is a definite prerequisite, ultimate success is determined by the orderly thought process for designing the construct, based on personal experience, the experience of others, and laboratory data. Creating a preoperative plan or blueprint can focus this design process. Spinal instrumentation surgery must not be assumed to be strictly “mechanical” or “routine”; rather, it requires serious and meticulous planning to ensure success.
Nomenclature
The nomenclature of spinal instrumentation is complex and often confusing at the outset. Factors that contribute to this complexity are the numerous components that constitute assembly, the numerous choices for purchase sites in the spine, and the variations in the mode of assembly of the hardware. There are four major categories: (1) anchors, devices that attach the construct to the bony spine (e.g., pedicle screws, cables, hooks); (2) longitudinal members (e.g., rods or plates); (3) connectors, devices that connect anchors to the longitudinal members or connect two longitudinal members (cross-connectors); and (4) accessories (e.g., washers or spacers). Most spinal instrumentation systems have all four of these components. The skill in designing a construct is reflected in the optimal choice of implants that result in biomechanically stable architecture.
Indications for Spinal Instrumentation
Spinal implants may be considered as internal supports that immobilize the spine until bony fusion occurs. In contrast to external orthoses that serve similar functions, spinal implants provide direct control of spinal segments and have a much broader scope.
The goals of spinal instrumentation are threefold. The first goal is immediate restoration of stability so that the patient may be prepared for early rehabilitation efforts. Immediate stability often decreases pain and may improve early function. It may also increase the success of bone union or fusion. The second goal of instrumentation is indirect decompression of neural structures, often accomplished by controlled distraction. Instrumentation may also be used to restore or maintain physiologic alignment of the spine. The third goal of spinal instrumentation is the correction of deformity to prevent pain or neurologic compromise and the neutralization of pathologic, deforming forces. Surgeons designing spinal instrumentation constructs should clearly delineate which of the aforementioned goals, or which combination of goals, they are attempting to achieve.
Construct Types (Modes of Force Application)
The six fundamental construct types are simple distraction, three-point bending, tension band fixation, fixed-moment arm cantilever-beam fixation, non–fixed-moment arm cantilever-beam fixation, and applied-moment arm cantilever-beam fixation ( Fig. 82-1 ).
Development of a Construct Blueprint
The preoperative development of a blueprint for implant placement is based on the composite information obtained from clinical assessment and imaging studies. It ensures a definitive plan and saves time in the operating room. Some flexibility in this plan may be required after surgical exposure of the bony spine because of unexpected findings. For instance, minor fractures at the implant-anchor site may necessitate deviation from the original plan.
A simple scheme should be used that provides (1) information about the level of the lesion or the level of the unstable segment or segments, (2) the types of implants to be used (anchors, longitudinal members, and cross-connectors), (3) the length of stabilization required on either side of the lesion, and (4) the mode of load bearing by the construct. The scheme guides selection of the appropriate implant components in advance, improves the intraoperative communication between surgeons and assistants, and enhances the chances of success.
Although the concept of construct design encompasses similar principles in all anatomic regions of the spine, designing a thoracolumbar construct poses more challenges than most cervical constructs. Various constructs, using a variety of anchors in different bony landmarks, each used in various mechanical modes (i.e., compression, distraction, neutralization, distraction followed by compression, or distraction and compression at different segmental levels), may be used in a successful strategy. In consideration of these complex decision-making dilemmas, this chapter focuses on thoracic and lumbar fixation design strategies.
Line Drawing of Proposed Construct
A simple dorsoventral or lateral line drawing of the spine provides a framework for the clear definition of the operative plan. Often only a dorsoventral drawing is necessary, although clear consideration of any sagittal plane deformity is vital. The line drawing provides the blueprint for surgery ( Fig. 82-2 ). This drawing can be easily obtained from a CT scan or from radiographs.
The convention used in this chapter, with regard to a dorsoventral line drawing, dictates that the left side of the drawing portrays the left side of the patient (i.e., the drawing portrays the patient as viewed from behind). This portrayal is in accordance with the most common surgical approaches for complex instrumentation constructs and decreases the chance for confusion.
Level of Lesion and Level of Fusion
The designation of the level of the lesion or location of instability, the levels to be fused, and the type of fusion should be placed next on the line drawing. The level of instability or lesion is designated by an “X,” and the precise extent of proposed bony fusion is designated by a hatched outline. The number of unstable motion segments should be assessed carefully, as should associated deformity. These factors determine the number of levels to be spanned with the construct. The choice of implants also affects this decision.
Hook constructs, often used in the past throughout the spine and still used occasionally in the thoracic region, should incorporate three spinal levels above and two spinal segments below the limits of the lesion ( 3A-2B rule ). Since the early 2000s, hooks have mainly been reserved for situations in which the pedicles are very small or for additional support in osteoporotic patients along with pedicle screws. If the patient has a marked angular kyphotic deformity, and if three-point bending is considered in an attempt to reduce the deformity, inclusion of four or more spinal levels above the lesion is common ( 4A-2B rule ) and may provide a more functional lever arm. Such long constructs are suited mostly for lesions in the middle and upper thoracic regions, although thoracic pedicle screws are widely used even in these regions.
In the lower thoracic spine (T8-10), the thoracolumbar junction (T11-L1), and the lumbar region (L2-5), pedicle screw constructs are often preferred. Size of the pedicles and the increased stiffness these screws provide make them an ideal choice. Short-segment fixation, with the inclusion of only one vertebra immediately above and below the lesion, is appropriate if the anterior, load-bearing column is intact, kyphotic deformity is not present, and the bone structure shows sufficient strength. With increasingly sophisticated fixation choices available, it must be remembered that a rigid, stable construct is the goal with the consideration of biology and biomechanics surrounding the implants.
Both segmental pedicle screw and hook instrumentation techniques are successful in obtaining global balance safely. Balance can be accomplished without neurologic injury, even in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, where neurologic risk is greatest. Segmental pedicle screw instrumentation offers a significantly better overall major and minor coronal curve correction and maintenance without neurologic problems and slightly improved pulmonary function values for the operative treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Pedicle screw constructs may also allow for a slightly shorter fusion length than segmental hook instrumentation.
Depiction of Implant Components
The type of implant components used in the instrumentation construct should be delineated clearly on the blueprint. The implant component at each implant-bone juncture may be a cable, hook, or screw. The convention used is to designate hooks by a right-angled arrow, with the arrowhead pointing in the direction of the orientation of the hook. The purchase site—and the type of hook—is designated further by “P” (for pedicle), “L” (for laminar or sublaminar), or “T” (for transverse process). Screws are designated by an “X” surrounded by a circle and placed over pedicles. Cable (or wire) is depicted as a loop.
The mode of axial load application (distraction, compression, or neutral) at each implant-bone juncture is depicted as an arrow. The arrow points in the direction of force application for distraction and compression or a horizontal line for neutral. Bending moments are difficult to depict accurately on the line drawing and are described.
The modes of application of each segmental level are depicted with arrows and lines, as previously described. The arrows and lines are drawn lateral to the designations of implant types. If sagittal plane forces are to be applied, they are depicted on the lateral line drawing. Finally, cross-fixator locations can be designated by rectangles with circles.
Mechanical Attributes of Spinal Implants: Construct Type
The mechanism that the construct uses (types of construct) to bear loads is also designated. Six methods of load bearing are associated with the six construct types: distraction, three-point bending, tension band fixation, fixed-moment arm cantilever-beam, non–fixed-moment arm cantilever-beam, and applied-moment arm cantilever-beam. It is difficult to depict this information on the line drawing. This information may be recorded in the space provided at the bottom of the drawing.
Construct Design Strategies
Multiple factors should be taken into account in designing a spinal instrumentation construct. Consideration should be given specifically to bony integrity, the location of the unstable spinal segment, the implant length with respect to the unstable segment, the need for cross-fixation, the need for dural decompression, the choice of ventral versus dorsal instrumentation, the availability of specific instrumentation, the metallic composition of instrumentation, and the familiarity of the surgeon with a particular technique. Each factor should be adequately addressed to achieve optimal outcome.
Bony Integrity
Bone quality is an important factor that influences stability of spinal implants. Osteoporosis poses a significant problem in spinal instrumentation. Biomechanical studies show pedicle screws are superior to pedicle hooks and sublaminar wires in thoracic spine when bone mineral density (BMD) is normal, although no significant difference was noticed in osteoporotic patients. In fact, hooks and cables may resist pullout better than bone screws. A longer construct is often required in osteoporotic bone. More anchors are needed to distribute the load over more segments, decreasing the load at any single site. Interbody stability, either from fully collapsed discs or interbody implants, may protect the dorsal construct from cantilever pullout. If pedicle screws are required in a patient with marked osteoporosis, consideration should be given to filling the screw tracks with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). The addition of PMMA significantly increases screw pullout strength. After screw trajectory has been established, the pedicle must be carefully assessed to ensure no cortical penetration has occurred that would allow the methyl methacrylate to leak. PMMA is placed using a large syringe under minimal pressure, and the pedicle screws are rapidly reinserted. The spinal canal should be inspected to ensure the methyl methacrylate has not inadvertently extruded into the canal with potential compression of neural elements. The instrumentation construct is then completed.
Biomechanical studies have shown that pedicle screw augmentation with PMMA using transpedicular and kyphoplasty techniques increased the pullout failure load twofold to threefold in osteoporotic vertebrae. Pedicle screws augmented using the kyphoplasty technique had significantly greater pullout strength than screws augmented with the transpedicular augmentation technique. Another option for osteoporotic spine fixation is use of expansive pedicle screws. The expansive pedicle screw can progressively compress bone at the screw-bone interface by the expansion of the ventral two thirds of the screw, which is thought to provide greater screw thread engagement of vertebral bone than a conventional pedicle screw of the same size. Biomechanical tests have shown that expansive pedicle screws can significantly improve the axial pullout force compared with conventional screws in osteoporotic bones.
Location of the Unstable Spinal Segment
The transition zones in the spine are key locations. These include the junctions of the occiput and cervical spine, the cervical and thoracic spine, the thoracic and lumbar spine, and the lumbar spine and sacrum. Each transition is associated with a change in anatomy, a change in the orientation of facets, and a change in inherent rigidity. Ideally, the construct should not end at an intermediate junction (e.g., cervicothoracic and thoracolumbar junctions). Ending the construct and the fusion at an intermediate junction may lead to higher loads on the implants, higher failure rates, and a greater likelihood of adjacent segment problems.
The closer the lesion or unstable segment is to the occiput or sacrum, the shorter the applied lever arm is to the terminal end of the construct. More rigid fixation is required at the terminal end of the construct. Often, multiple points of fixation are used in the sacrum or occiput. Long constructs that end at the sacrum have a high rate of pseudarthrosis at the terminal end (L5-S1). A very high flexion-extension bending moment exists on the S1 screws, which leads to loosening of the screws. The addition of iliac screws, alar screws, or S2 pedicle screws to the construct significantly decreases the bending moment on the S1 pedicle screws and increases the fusion rate.
Implant Length
Generally, the shortest construct that provides adequate stability is preferred. Use of a short construct preserves as much motion as possible in the normal segments of the spine above and below the construct. Also, long constructs may place undue stress on the inferior most aspect of the construct and the immediately adjacent motion segment. Although long constructs in the relatively immobile thoracic spine would not jeopardize physiologic motion, they should still be avoided if possible. A long construct may be required to provide greater purchase of adjacent segments and greater stability. In the treatment of gross spinal instability or long curvatures (scoliosis or kyphosis), longer constructs may apply greater force overall and less force at each individual segment. Adding additional bone anchors, increasing rod diameter, or both can significantly increase overall stiffness.
Specific issues arise regarding the length of instrumentation in circumstances in which it is desired to keep the fusion short. Two options are available: (1) use longer instrumentation and a short fusion and remove the instrumentation later, or (2) keep the fusion and the construct short.
Instrumentation Fusion Mismatch (“Rod Long, Fuse Short”)
Instrumentation fusion mismatch describes the discrepancy between the number of spinal levels incorporated within an instrumentation construct and the number of spinal levels undergoing bony fusion. This technique was particularly popular in the past, when only less rigid anchors were available. Consequently, construct length was increased to gain stability. Generally, only the spinal segments immediately adjacent to the unstable segment are fused.
The rationale for this approach is that a long instrumentation construct is used to reduce and correct the deformity while fusing only the minimum number of segments necessary. The hardware is later removed (after 1 year), when the fractures have healed and the fusion has consolidated, releasing the instrumented, but not fused, segments from immobilization. There is some concern that the facet joints included within the instrumented nonfused segments may undergo degenerative arthropathy. An additional disadvantage of the “rod long, fuse short” construct is the potential for the implants to loosen. Hooks and cables allow more movement at this juncture than screws and may not pose as great a problem. This design has generally fallen out of favor. If this mode of construct is desired, screws should not be used as anchors in the nonfused segments.
Short-Segment Fixation
Generally, hook and cable constructs require long constructs, three above and two below (3A-2B) the lesion. This design provides a longer and more efficient moment arm and a stronger construct. The 3A-2B configuration is a logical compromise between the problems associated with longer constructs and the shorter moment arm achieved with the shorter constructs and has been shown to provide good stability. Pedicle screws may allow shorter constructs, fewer fusion segments and a single level above and below the lesion (1A-1B). Short-segment fixation provides an increasingly popular alternative, particularly when applied in a compression mode. Reinforcement with a fracture-level screw combinations in patients who underwent short-segment fixation can help to provide better kyphosis correction and offers improved biomechanical spinal stability in patients with thoracolumbar burst fracture. Because of the limited fixation, there may be a higher rate of failure ; this is particularly true if the screw purchase is poor (osteoporosis) or if the loads are too great, secondary to a loss of anterior column stability. Long constructs have been shown to be reliable and effective in treating thoracic injuries, with or without ventral reconstruction. Short-segment pedicle instrumentation constructs have proved to be effective in stabilizing thoracolumbar and lumbar fractures while limiting the disruption of lower lumbar motion segments. Loss of anterior column integrity leads to fixation failure when short constructs are not supplemented with further fixation or a ventral reconstruction. In a very unstable spine, without significant anterior column loss and rotational and shear fractures, pedicle screw fixation with two above and two below should provide adequate stability in most circumstances.
Cross-Fixation
Cross-fixation between longitudinal members generally improves the torsional stability of longer constructs and the lateral bending stiffness ( Fig. 82-3 ). It is not as critical to use cross-fixation in short-segment constructs. For a short-segment rod construct with a skipped level (nonsegmental fixation), a cross-fixing device improves torsional stability to that of segmental fixation. There is little effect of cross-links on flexion-extension stiffness. When using long rod constructs with hook anchors, cross-fixation is essential to improve hook stability and torsional and lateral bending stiffness. Interconnecting the hooks on the two longitudinal members with cross-links significantly increases the fixation rigidity and decreases the failure rate. When the distal end is anchored by pedicle screws, the torsional and bending stiffness is much greater and not significantly different with cross-links.
Related posts:
Anatomy of Nerve Root Compression, Nerve Root Tethering, and Spinal Instability
Ventral and Ventrolateral Subaxial Decompression
Complex Lumbosacropelvic Fixation Techniques
Timing of Surgery Following Spinal Cord Injury
Spinal Wound Closure
Explant Analysis of Wear, Degradation, and Fatigue in Motion Preserving Spinal Implants
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
