Biomechanics of Prophylactic Tethering for Proximal Junctional Kyphosis: Comparison of Posterior Tether Looping Techniques.

Study Design: Biomechanical study.

Objectives: Compare effects of four spinous process (SP) tether looping methods on segmental flexion range of motion (ROM), intervertebral disc (IVD) pressures, and peak tether forces.

Summary Of Background Data: SP tethering has been gaining interest as a prophylactic technique to prevent PJK caused by ligamentous laxity in ASD corrective surgery. Several SP tether looping methods have been proposed; however, there is no consensus on appropriate technique. No study has investigated the effect of the tether looping method on segmental biomechanics.

Methods: Nine T1-T4 cadaveric motion segments were tested to 5 Nm of flexion-extension. The uppermost instrumented vertebra (UIV) was located at T3 using standard pedicle screws and fusion rods. A crosslink (CL) was placed inferior to the pedicle screws. A 5-mm polyester tether was looped under the CL at UIV and through holes drilled at the base of UIV + 1 and UIV + 2 SPs. Biomechanical measurements included flexion ROM, IVD pressure, and peak tether forces at UIV/UIV + 1 and UIV + 1/UIV + 2. An untethered test was used for baseline values. Tethered tests included one single-level (SL) method and three double-level (DL) methods: common (CM), chained (CH), and figure-8 (F8).

Results: SL yielded significant reductions in flexion ROM at UIV/UIV + 1 (p = .001) and in IVD pressure at UIV/UIV + 1 (p = .007). Choice of DL method had a significant effect on flexion ROM at UIV/UIV + 1 (p = .004) but not at UIV + 1/UIV + 2 (p = .14). Choice of DL method also had a significant effect on IVD pressure at UIV/UIV + 1 (p < .001) but not at UIV + 1/UIV + 2 (p = .311). CM produced the greatest reductions in flexion ROM and IVD pressure, with the lowest peak tether forces among the DL methods.

Conclusion: Tether looping method significantly alters segmental biomechanics. Tethering with the CM method to UIV + 2 allows for reductions in loads acting on the UIV + 1 SP and posterior ligaments.

Level Of Evidence: Level V, biomechanical study.