A Dual-Screw Technique for Vertebral Compression Fractures via Robotic Navigation in the Osteopenic Lumbar Spine: An <i>In-Vitro</i> Biomechanical Analysis

摘要

Study Design Biomechanical cadaveric study. Objectives Multi-rod constructs maximize posterior fixation, but most use a single pedicle screw (PS) anchor point to support multiple rods. Robotic navigation allows for insertion of PS and cortical screw (CS) within the same pedicle, providing 4 points of bony fixation per vertebra. Recent studies demonstrated radiographic feasibility for dual-screw constructs for posterior lumbar spinal fixation; however, biomechanical characterization of this technique is lacking. Methods Fourteen cadaveric lumbar specimens (L1–L5) were divided into 2 groups (n = 7): PS, and PS + CS. VCF was simulated at L3. Bilateral posterior screws were placed from L2–L4. Load control (±7.5Nm) testing performed in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), axial rotation (AR) to measure ROM of: (1) intact; (2) 2-rod construct; (3) 4-rod construct. Static compression testing of 4-rod construct performed at 5 mm/min to measure failure load, axial stiffness. Results Four-rod construct was more rigid than 2-rod in FE ( P &lt; .001), LB ( P &lt; .001), AR ( P &lt; .001). Screw technique had no significant effect on FE ( P = .516), LB ( P = .477), or AR ( P = .452). PS + CS 4-rod construct was significantly more stable than PS group ( P = .032). Stiffness of PS + CS group (445.8 ± 79.3 N/mm) was significantly greater ( P = .019) than PS (317.8 ± 79.8 N/mm). Similarly, failure load of PS + CS group (1824.9 ± 352.2 N) was significantly greater ( P = .001) than PS (913.4 ± 309.8 N). Conclusions Dual-screw, 4-rod construct may be more stable than traditional rod-to-rod connectors, especially in axial rotation. Axial stiffness and ultimate strength of 4-rod, dual-screw construct were significantly greater than rod-to-rod. In this study, 4-rod construct was found to have potential biomechanical benefits of increased strength, stiffness, stability.