Biomechanical human cadaver study.
To determine the three-dimensional intervertebral ranges of motion (ROMs) of intact and hook-instrumented thoracic spine specimens subjected to physiological loads, using an in vitro experimental protocol with EOS biplane radiography.
Summary of background data
Pedicle screws are commonly used in thoracic instrumentation constructs, and their biomechanical properties have been widely studied. Promising clinical results have been reported using a T1–T5 thoracic hook–claw construct for proximal rod anchoring. Instrumentation stability is a crucial factor in minimizing mechanical complications rates but had not been assessed for this construct in a biomechanical study.
Six fresh-frozen human cadaver C6–T7 thoracic spines were studied. The first thoracic vertebrae were instrumented using two claws of supra-laminar and pedicle hooks, each fixed on two adjacent vertebrae, on either side of a single free vertebra. Quasi-static pure-moment loads up to 5 Nm were applied to each specimen before and after instrumentation, in flexion–extension, right and left bending, and axial rotation. Five steel beads impacted in each vertebra allowed 3D tracking of vertebral movements on EOS biplanar radiographs acquired after each loading step. The relative ranges of motion (ROMs) of each pair of vertebras were computed.
Mean ROMs with the intact specimens were 17° in flexion–extension, 27.9° in lateral bending, and 29.5° in axial rotation. Corresponding values with the instrumented specimens were 0.9°, 2.6°, and 7.3°, respectively. Instrumentation significantly (P < 0.05) decreased flexion–extension (by 92–98%), lateral bending (by 87–96%), and axial rotation (by 68–84%).
This study establishes the biomechanical stability of a double claw–hook construct in the upper thoracic spine, which may well explain the low mechanical complication rate in previous clinical studies.
Level of evidence
Not applicable, experimental cadaver study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Miladi L, Gaume M, Khouri N, Topouchian V, Glorion C (2018) Minimally invasive surgery for neuromuscular scoliosis: results and complications in a series of one hundred patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43:E968
Wolf S (2019) Correction of adult spinal deformity with a minimally invasive fusionless bipolar construct: Preliminary results. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2019.02.015
Deviren V, Acaroglu E (2005) Pedicle screw fixation of the thoracic spine: an in vitro biomechanical study on different configurations. Spine 30(22):2530–2537
Morgenstern CW, Ferguson S (2003) Posterior thoracic extrapedicular fixation: a biomechanical study. Spine 28(16):1829–1835
Metzger M, Robinson S (2016) Biomechanical analysis of the proximal adjacent segment after multilevel instrumentation of the thoracic spine: do hooks ease the transition? Global Spine J 6:335–343
Kuklo TR, Dmitriev AE (2008) Biomechanical contribution of transverse connectors to segmental stability following long segment instrumentation with thoracic pedicle screws. Spine 33:482–487
Lynn G, Mukherjee DP (1997) Mechanical stability of thoraco-lumbar pedicle screw fixation. The effects of crosslinks. Spine 22:1568–2001
Hackenberg L, Link T (2002) Axial and tangential fixation strength of pedicle screws versus hooks in the thoracic spine in relation to bone mineral density. Spine 27:937–942
Laar W, Meester RJ, Smit TH, van Royen BJ (2007) A biomechanical analysis of the self-retaining pedicle hook device in posterior spinal fixation. Eur Spine J 16:1209–1214
Borbowski SL, Tamrazian E (2016) Challenging the conventional standard for thoracic spine range of motion. A systematic review. JBJS Rev 4(4):e5
Brasiliense LB, Lazaro BC (2011) Biomechanical contribution of the rib cage to thoracic stability. Spine 23(26):E1686–E1693
Baladaud L, Gallard E (2002) Biomechanical evaluation of bipedicular spinal fixation system. A comparative stiffness tests. Spine 27(17):1875–1880
Heller JG, Shuster JK (1999) Pedicle and transverse process screws of the upper thoracic spine. Spine 24(7):654–658
Fujimori T, Iwasaki M (2014) Kinematics of the thoracic spine in trunk lateral bending: in vivo three dimensional analysis. Spine J 14(9):1991
Fujimori T, Iwasaki M (2012) Kinematics of the thoracic spine in trunk rotation: in vivo 3 dimensional analysis. Spine 37(21):E1318–E1328
Heneghan NR, Hall A (2009) Stability and intra tester reliability of an in vivo measurement of thoracic axial rotation using an innovation methodology. Man Ther 14(4):452–455
Troke M, Moore AP (1998) Reliability of the OSI CA 6000 Spine Motion Analyser with new skin fixation system when used on the thoracic spine. Man Ther 3(1):27–33
Mannion AF, Knecht K (2004) A new skin surface device for measuring the curvature and global and segmental ranges of motions of the spine: reliability of measurements and comparison with data reviewed from the literature. Eur Spine J 13(2):122–136
Morita D, Yukawa Y (2014) Range of motion of thoracic spine in sagittal plane. Eur Spine J 23(3):673–678
Humbert L, De Guise JA, Aubert B, Godbout B, Skalli W (2009) 3D reconstruction of the spine from biplanar X-rays using parametric models based on transversal and longitudinal inferences. Med Eng Phys 31(6):681–687
Muth-seng C, Brauge D, Soriau N, Sandoz B, Van den Abbeele M, Skalli W, Laporte S (2019) Experimental analysis of the lower cervical spine in flexion with a focus on facet tracking. J Biomech. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2019.06.022
Liljenqvist U, Hackenberg L, Link T, Halm H (2001) Pullout strength of pedicle screws versus pedicle and laminar hooks in the thoracic spine. Acta Orthop Belg 67:157–163
Part of this study was financed by EUROS, including the spinal implants. We are grateful to the BiomecAM chair program on musculoskeletal modeling for financial support.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.
CPP n° ID-RCB/ EUDRACT: 2014-A01043-44.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Gaume, M., Persohn, S., Vergari, C. et al. Biomechanical cadaver study of proximal fixation in a minimally invasive bipolar construct. Spine Deform 8, 33–38 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-019-00014-2
- Thoracic fixation
- Biomechanical cadaver study
- Neuromuscular scoliosis
- Minimally invasive surgery
- Bipolar construct