Preclinical evaluation of spinal implants is a necessary step to ensure their reliability and safety before implantation. The American Society for Testing and Materials reapproved F1717 standard for the assessment of mechanical properties of posterior spinal fixators, which simulates a vertebrectomy model and recommends mimicking vertebral bodies using polyethylene blocks. This set-up should represent the clinical use, but available data in the literature are few. Anatomical parameters depending on the spinal level were compared to published data or measurements on biplanar stereoradiography on 13 patients. Other mechanical variables, describing implant design were considered, and all parameters were investigated using a numerical parametric finite element model. Stress values were calculated by considering either the combination of the average values for each parameter or their worst-case combination depending on the spinal level. The standard set-up represents quite well the anatomy of an instrumented average thoracolumbar segment. The stress on the pedicular screw is significantly influenced by the lever arm of the applied load, the unsupported screw length, the position of the centre of rotation of the functional spine unit and the pedicular inclination with respect to the sagittal plane. The worst-case combination of parameters demonstrates that devices implanted below T5 could potentially undergo higher stresses than those described in the standard suggestions (maximum increase of 22.2% at L1). We propose to revise F1717 in order to describe the anatomical worst case condition we found at L1 level: this will guarantee higher safety of the implant for a wider population of patients.

The bilateral double parallel rods configuration resulted the best to reduce the stresses on the spinal fixators at the osteotomy site. However, the high loads acting on the rods with respect to the physiologic condition could slow down the bone healing at the osteotomy site.

The study supports the current clinical practice providing a strong biomechanical rationale to recommend 4-rod constructs based on accessory rods combined with cages adjacent to PSO site. Although weaker, the usage of accessory rods without cages and of a central satellite rod with hooks in combination with interbody spacers may also be justified. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The study increases our awareness on the use of the current standards to achieve meaningful results easy to compare and interpret.

BackgroundExtensive lytic lesions of the vertebral body (VB) increase risk of fracture and instability and require stabilization of the anterior column. Vertebral augmentation is an accepted treatment option, but when osteolysis has extensively destroyed the VB cortical boundaries (a condition herein defined as ‘extreme osteolysis’), the risk of cement leakage and/or insufficient filling is high. Vertebral body stents (VBSs) might allow partial restoration of VB height, cement containment, and reinforcement, but their use in extreme osteolysis has not been investigated.ObjectiveTo assess retrospectively the feasibility and safety of VBS augmentation in patients with ‘extreme osteolysis’ of the VB.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 41 treated vertebrae (from T1 to L5). VB reconstruction was assessed on postprocedure CT images and rated on a qualitative 4-point scale (poor-fair-good-excellent). Clinical and radiological follow-up was performed at 1 month and thereafter at intervals in accordance with oncological protocols.ResultsVBS augmentation was performed at 12 lumbar and 29 thoracic levels, with bilateral VBS in 23/41. VB reconstruction was judged satisfactory (good or excellent) in 37/41 (90%) of levels. Bilateral VBS received higher scores than unilateral (p=0.057, Pearson’s X2). We observed no periprocedural complications. Cement leaks (epidural or foraminal) occurred at 5/41 levels (12.2%) without clinical consequences. Follow-up data were available for 27/29 patients, extending beyond 6 months for 20 patients (7–28 months, mean 15.3 months). VBS implant stability was observed in 40/41 cases (97.5%).ConclusionsOur results support the use of VBS as a minimally invasive, safe and effective option for reconstructing the anterior column in prominent VB osteolysis.

No abstract

The International Standardization Organization (ISO) 12189 standard was recently introduced to preclinically evaluate and compare the mechanical properties of posterior stabilization devices. This scenario presents some new significant steps ahead over the vertebrectomy model recommended by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F1717 standard: the modular anterior support allows for describing a closer scenario to the effective clinical use as well as to test very flexible and dynamic posterior stabilization devices. Despite these significant advantages, ISO 12189 received little attention in the literature. Anatomical parameters depending on the spinal level were compared to the published data or original measurements on biplanar stereoradiography on 13 patients. Other mechanical variables, describing the test set-up design, were considered and all parameters were investigated using a numerical parametric finite element model. Stress values were calculated by also considering their worst-case combination. The standard set-up represents quite well the anatomy of an instrumented average thoracolumbar segment. The parametric comparative analysis demonstrates a significant (even beyond +350%) maximum increase in the stress on the device, compared to the standard currently in use. The anterior support stiffness plays the most detrimental effect (maximum stress increases up to 396%). The initial precompression step has an important role in determining the final stress values achieved at peak load (up to +76%). Moreover, when combining these two contributions, an even higher stress increase may be achieved (up to 473%). Despite the other anatomical parameters playing a secondary role, their worst-case combination demonstrates that a device could potentially undergo higher stresses than those reached according to standard suggestions (maximum increase of 22.4% at L1). Any user/designer should be aware of these effects when using ISO 12189 standard for the preclinical evaluation of posterior spinal stabilization devices.

No abstract