The triangle formed between the apex of the sacral hiatus and the superolateral sacral crests was found to have the features of an equilateral triangle. The sacrum and sacral hiatus are variable anatomical structures. However, the equilateral triangle located between the apex of the sacral hiatus and superolateral sacral crests will certainly be of use in determining the location of the sacral hiatus during CEB.

No abstract

Object An in vitro flexibility experiment was performed to compare the biomechanical stability of asymmetrical lumbar pedicle screw fixation (longer hardware attached ipsilaterally to a 1-sided lesion), short and long fixation, and fixation with and without interconnection to the involved vertebra. Methods Seven human cadaveric specimens (T12–S1) were studied intact; after simulated unilateral lesions were created at L2–3 and L3-4, the segments were stabilized by 1) L2–4 unilateral fixation (L-3 excluded), 2) L2–4 bilateral fixation (L-3 included contralaterally), 3) L2–5 unilateral fixation (L-3 excluded), 4) L2–5 fixation ipsilateral (L-3 excluded) and L2–4 fixation contralateral (L-3 included), 5) L2–5 bilateral fixation (L-3 included contralaterally), and 6) L2–5 bilateral fixation (L-3 excluded). The testing order varied among specimens. Angular range of motion (ROM) and lax zone were recorded optically while loading to 6.0 Nm was created with nonconstraining pure moments. Results Unilateral short fixation provided significantly worse stabilization than any other construct tested in all loading modes (p < 0.05, repeated-measures analysis of variance). There was a mean 56% reduction in ROM across the lesion after adding 1 additional level rostrally and caudally. Asymmetrical long/short stabilization provided similar stability to symmetrical long stabilization. Minimal additional stability was gained by including L-3 in the long bilateral fixation construct. Conclusions Unilateral fixation is inadequate for stabilizing a 2-level unilateral lesion. Bilateral fixation, whether symmetrical or asymmetrical, provides good stabilization for this injury. It is not important for stability to include the level of the lesion within the long construct contralaterally.

Object Cervical total disc replacement has emerged as a surgical option to preserve motion and potentially avoid adjacent-segment disease after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Recently, much attention has been directed at the ability of a given device to maintain and/or restore normal segmental alignment. Nonphysiological disc and segmental angulation could result in increased stresses transmitted to the facet joints and posterior elements, conflicting with the essence of arthroplasty and potentially leading to adjacent-segment disease. The goal of this study was to contrast device alignment and segmental kinematics provided by 3 different cervical disc prostheses. Methods Sixty patients were retrospectively analyzed and divided into 3 groups receiving the Bryan, ProDisc-C, or Synergy disc. Only single-level arthroplasty cases were included in the study. Lateral dynamic radiographs of the cervical spine were analyzed using quantitative motion analysis software (Medical Metrics, Inc.) to analyze the kinematics at the index level both preoperatively and postoperatively. Several parameters were noted, including range of motion, disc angles, shell angles, anterior and posterior disc heights, translation, and center of rotation. Preoperative and postoperative data were compared using the Student t-test with a significance level of p < 0.05. Results Postoperatively, all 3 disc groups maintained adequate range of motion at the implanted level. With respect to the shell angles, the Synergy disc demonstrated the least variability, maintaining 6° lordotic configuration between the device endplates. In the Bryan disc group, significant shell kyphosis developed postoperatively (p < 0.0001). Both ProDisc-C and Synergy discs significantly increased anterior and posterior disc heights (p < 0.0001). The Bryan and Synergy discs maintained the natural center of rotation, whereas significant anterior shift occurred with ProDisc-C. Conclusions The goal for motion preservation at the implanted level was achieved using all 3 devices. The Synergy disc was unique in its ability to alter device angulation by 6°. The Bryan disc demonstrated device endplate kyphosis. Both the Synergy disc and ProDisc-C increased disc space height.