The Biomechanics of the Transpedicular Endoscopic Approach.


Journal

Spine
ISSN: 1528-1159
Titre abrégé: Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7610646

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 Nov 2023
Historique:
received: 27 08 2023
accepted: 31 10 2023
pubmed: 9 11 2023
medline: 9 11 2023
entrez: 9 11 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Biomechanical cadaveric study. The goal of this study was to analyze the effects of an endoscopic transpedicular approach with different drill diameters (6 and 8 mm) to compare them with the intact native side. In addition, the influence of bone quality on the resistance of the pedicle was investigated. Clinical studies have repeatedly highlighted the benefits of endoscopic transpedicular decompression for down-migrated lumbar disc herniations. However, the biomechanical effects on pedicle stability have not been studied up to now. Twenty-four vertebras originating from four fresh-frozen cadavers were tested under uniaxial compression load in a ramp-to-failure test: (1) the tunneled pedicle on one side, and (2) the native pedicle on the other side. Twelve lumbar vertebrae were assigned to a drill diameter of 6 mm and the other 12 to a diameter of 8 mm. The median ratio of sustained force for the operated side compared to the intact contralateral side is equal to 74% (63-88) for both drill diameters combined. An 8 mm transpedicular approach recorded an axial resistance of 77% (60-88) compared to the intact contralateral side ( P =0.002). A 6 mm approach resulted in an axial resistance of 72% (66-84) compared to the intact opposite side ( P =0.01). No significant difference between the two different drill diameters was recorded ( P =1). For all 3 subgroups (intact, 8 mm, 6 mm) the HU-values and the absolute resistance force showed significant correlations (intact: ρ=0.859; P <0.001; 8 mm: ρ=0.902; P <0.001; 6 mm: ρ=0.835; P <0.001). Transpedicular approach significantly reduces the axial resistance force of the pedicle, which may lead to pedicle fracture. Bone quality correlated positively with the absolute resistance force of the pedicle, whereas the influence of the drill hole diameter plays only a limited role.

Sections du résumé

STUDY DESIGN METHODS
Biomechanical cadaveric study.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
The goal of this study was to analyze the effects of an endoscopic transpedicular approach with different drill diameters (6 and 8 mm) to compare them with the intact native side. In addition, the influence of bone quality on the resistance of the pedicle was investigated.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA BACKGROUND
Clinical studies have repeatedly highlighted the benefits of endoscopic transpedicular decompression for down-migrated lumbar disc herniations. However, the biomechanical effects on pedicle stability have not been studied up to now.
METHODS METHODS
Twenty-four vertebras originating from four fresh-frozen cadavers were tested under uniaxial compression load in a ramp-to-failure test: (1) the tunneled pedicle on one side, and (2) the native pedicle on the other side. Twelve lumbar vertebrae were assigned to a drill diameter of 6 mm and the other 12 to a diameter of 8 mm.
RESULTS RESULTS
The median ratio of sustained force for the operated side compared to the intact contralateral side is equal to 74% (63-88) for both drill diameters combined. An 8 mm transpedicular approach recorded an axial resistance of 77% (60-88) compared to the intact contralateral side ( P =0.002). A 6 mm approach resulted in an axial resistance of 72% (66-84) compared to the intact opposite side ( P =0.01). No significant difference between the two different drill diameters was recorded ( P =1). For all 3 subgroups (intact, 8 mm, 6 mm) the HU-values and the absolute resistance force showed significant correlations (intact: ρ=0.859; P <0.001; 8 mm: ρ=0.902; P <0.001; 6 mm: ρ=0.835; P <0.001).
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Transpedicular approach significantly reduces the axial resistance force of the pedicle, which may lead to pedicle fracture. Bone quality correlated positively with the absolute resistance force of the pedicle, whereas the influence of the drill hole diameter plays only a limited role.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37942817
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004871
pii: 00007632-990000000-00504
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declarations of Competing Interests : MF reports being a Consultant for Incremed (Balgrist University Startup), Zimmer Biomet, Medacta, and 25 Segments (Balgrist Startup). All the other authors report no conflicts of interest.

Auteurs

Michel Meisterhans (M)

Department of Orthopedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Vincent Hagel (V)

University Spine Center Zurich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Spine Center, Asklepios Klinik Lindau, Lindau, Germany.

José M Spirig (JM)

University Spine Center Zurich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Marie-Rosa Fasser (MR)

Institute of Biomechanics, Balgrist Campus, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Spine Biomechanics, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Mazda Farshad (M)

Department of Orthopedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
University Spine Center Zurich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Jonas Widmer (J)

Institute of Biomechanics, Balgrist Campus, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Spine Biomechanics, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Classifications MeSH