Biomechanical analysis of motion following sacroiliac joint fusion using lateral sacroiliac screws with or without lumbosacral instrumented fusion

Dall, Bruce E.; Eden, Sonia V.; Cho, Woojin; Karkenny, Alexa J.; Brooks, Daina M.; Hayward, Gerald; Moldavsky, Mark; Yandamuri, Soumya S; Bucklen, Brandon

doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.05.025

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Surgical SIJ fixation is a treatment that minimizes SIJ motion 6,20 , and there are fixation methods aiming the ossification on the articular surface following surgery 21,22 . These groups' experiments have been performed with cadavers 23 or FEM [24][25][26] in order to assess the fixation. However, these only indicate a condition immediately after the surgery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finite element analysis of load transition on sacroiliac joint during bipedal walking

Toyohara

Kurosawa

Hammer

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shin-ichi izumi 7,8 , eiichi Murakami 2 , Hiroshi ozawa 9 & toshiro ohashi 10 the sacroiliac joint (SiJ) is burdened with variant loads. However, no methods have allowed to measure objectively how the SiJ deforms during bipedal walking. in this study, in-vivo walking conditions were replicated in a kinematic model combining the finite element method with 3D walking analysis data divided into five phases in order to visualize the load transition on the SIJ and clarify the role of the SiJ. Both models with and without inclusion of the SiJ were investigated. in models with bilateral SIJs, the displacement differed greatly between the sacrum and both hip bones on the SIJ as the boundary. the movements of the sacrum involved a nutation movement in the stance phase and a counter-nutation in the swing phase relative to the ilium. in models without SiJs, the displacement of the pelvis and loads of pelvic ligaments decreased, and the equivalent stress of the SiJs increased compared to the model with SiJs. the walking loads cause distortion of the entire pelvis, and stress concentration at the SiJ are seen due to the morphology of the pelvic ring. However, the SiJs help dissipate the resulting stresses, and the surrounding ligaments are likewise involved in load transmission.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finite element analysis of load transition on sacroiliac joint during bipedal walking

Toyohara

Kurosawa

Hammer

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a comprehensive S2 alar iliac screw instrumentation study using 21 lumbopelvic specimens, Cunningham and co-workers 13 reported SIJ motion (degrees) to accuracies of 1.78 + 0.96 (flexion-extension), 0.52 + 0.34 (lateral bending) and 0.48 + 0.32 degrees (axial rotation). In a similar study by Dall et al 15 evaluating SIJ fusion using lateral sacroiliac screws, optoelectronic tracking quantified the intact SIJ motion (degrees) under flexion-extension, lateral bending and axial rotation at 1.80 + 1.62, 0.44 + 0.35 and 1.13 + 0.82, respectively. Additional studies on intact SIJ kinematics reported translations along the 3-dimensional coordinate axes on the order of 0.1 mm to 1.04 mm with corresponding rotations of 0.11 to 1.14 degrees.…”

Section: Application Accuracy-musculoskeletal Kinematics Laboratory P...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Multidirectional flexibility testing is typically performed along 3 predominant loading axes-flexionextension, lateral bending, and axial rotation under controlled displacement rates of 1 to 3 degrees per second for multiple cycles. To this end, a series of laboratory investigations using the NDI Certus and Vicon MX13 camera systems (Vicon Motion Systems Ltd., Oxford, UK) reported the peak limits of optoelectronic accuracy when evaluating kinematics of the osteoligamentous spine [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][86][87][88][89][90][91][92] (Figure 5A and B).…”

Section: Application Accuracy-musculoskeletal Kinematics Laboratory P...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Analysis of Optoelectronic Accuracy in the Laboratory Setting Versus Clinical Operative Environment: A Systematic Review

Cunningham

Brooks

2022

Global Spine Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: The optoelectronic camera source and data interpolation process serve as the foundation for navigational integrity in robotic-assisted surgical platforms. The current systematic review serves to provide a basis for the numerical disparity observed when comparing the intrinsic accuracy of optoelectronic cameras versus accuracy in the laboratory setting and clinical operative environments. Methods: Review of the PubMed and Cochrane Library research databases was performed. The exhaustive literature compilation obtained was then vetted to reduce redundancies and categorized into topics of intrinsic accuracy, registration accuracy, musculoskeletal kinematic platforms, and clinical operative platforms. Results: A total of 465 references were vetted and 137 comprise the basis for the current analysis. Regardless of application, the common denominators affecting overall optoelectronic accuracy are intrinsic accuracy, registration accuracy, and application accuracy. Intrinsic accuracy equaled or was less than 0.1 mm translation and 0.1 degrees rotation per fiducial. Controlled laboratory platforms reported 0.1 to 0.5 mm translation and 0.1 to 1.0 degrees rotation per array. Accuracy in robotic-assisted spinal surgery reported 1.5 to 6.0 mm translation and 1.5 to 5.0 degrees rotation when comparing planned to final implant position. Conclusions: Navigational integrity and maintenance of fidelity of optoelectronic data is the cornerstone of robotic-assisted spinal surgery. Transitioning from controlled laboratory to clinical operative environments requires an increased number of steps in the optoelectronic kinematic chain and error potential. Diligence in planning, fiducial positioning, system registration and intra-operative workflow have the potential to improve accuracy and decrease disparity between planned and final implant position.

show abstract

“…Yet, no study has assessed SIJ fixation performance for patients with a lower bone quality. Several experimental studies assessed the effect of fusion implants on SIJ range of motion (ROM) 10‐16 . Such studies, however, do not allow isolating the effects of certain parameters such as bone quality, and results were influenced by other factors (e.g., sex, age, and state of the specimen, its stiffness, experimental conditions, etc.).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Instrumentation of the sacroiliac joint with cylindrical threaded implants: A detailed finite element study of patient characteristics affecting fixation performance

Dubé-Cyr

Villemure

Arnoux

et al. 2021

Journal Orthopaedic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a known pain generator that, in severe cases, may require surgical fixation to reduce intra-articular displacements and allow for arthrodesis.The objective of this computational study was to analyze how the number of implants affected SIJ stabilization with patient-specific characteristics such as the pelvic geometry and bone quality. Detailed finite element models were developed to account for three pelvises of differing anatomy. Each model was tested with a normal and low bone density (LD) under two types of loading: compression only and compression with flexion and extension moments. These models were instrumented with one to three cylindrical, threaded and fenestrated implants through a posterior oblique trajectory, requiring less muscle dissection than the more common lateral trajectory used with triangular implants. Compared with the noninstrumented pelvis, the change in range of motion (ROM) and stress distribution were used to characterize joint stabilization. Noninstrumented mobility ranged from 0.86 to 2.55 mm and from 1.37°to 6.11°. Across patient-specific characteristics, the ROM reduction with one implant varied from 3% to 21% for vertical and 15% to 47% for angular displacements. With two implants, the ROM reduction ranged from 12% to 41% for vertical and from 28% to 61% for angular displacements. Three implants, however, did not further improve the joint stability (14% to 42% for vertical and 32% to 63% for angular displacements). With respect to patient characteristics, an LD led to a decreased stabilization and a higher volume of stressed bone (>75% of yield stress). A better understanding of how patient characteristics affect the implant performance could help improve surgical planning of sacroiliac arthrodesis.

show abstract

Biomechanical analysis of motion following sacroiliac joint fusion using lateral sacroiliac screws with or without lumbosacral instrumented fusion

Cited by 14 publications

References 34 publications

Finite element analysis of load transition on sacroiliac joint during bipedal walking

Finite element analysis of load transition on sacroiliac joint during bipedal walking

Comparative Analysis of Optoelectronic Accuracy in the Laboratory Setting Versus Clinical Operative Environment: A Systematic Review

Instrumentation of the sacroiliac joint with cylindrical threaded implants: A detailed finite element study of patient characteristics affecting fixation performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About