The biomechanical effect of lumbopelvic distance reduction on reconstruction after total sacrectomy: a comparative finite element analysis of four techniques.

Spine J

In Silico Biomechanics Laboratory, National Center for Spinal Disorders, Királyhágó Str. 1-3, Budapest, Hungary; National Center for Spinal Disorders, Királyhágó Str. 1-3, Budapest, Hungary; Department of Spine Surgery, Department of Orthopaedics, Semmelweis University, Üllői Str. 78/b, Budapest, Hungary. Electronic address:

Published: October 2024

Background Context: Following total sacrectomy, lumbopelvic reconstruction is essential to restore continuity between the lumbar spine and pelvis. However, to achieve long-term clinical stability, bony fusion between the lumbar spine and the pelvic ring is crucial. Reduction of the lumbopelvic distance can promote successful bony fusion. Although many lumbopelvic reconstruction techniques (LPRTs) have been previously analyzed, the biomechanical effect of lumbopelvic distance reduction (LPDR) has not been investigated yet.

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the biomechanical characteristics of four different LPRTs while considering the effect of LPDR.

Study Design/setting: A comparative finite element (FE) study.

Methods: The FE models following total sacrectomy were developed to analyze four different LPRTs, with and without LPDR. The closed-loop reconstruction (CLR), the sacral-rod reconstruction (SRR), the four-rod reconstruction (FRR), and the improved compound reconstruction (ICR) techniques were analyzed in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Lumbopelvic stability was assessed through the shift-down displacement and the relative sagittal rotation of L5, while implant safety was evaluated based on the stress state at the bone-implant interface and within the rods.

Results: Regardless of LPDR, both the shift-down displacement and relative sagittal rotation of L5 consistently ranked the LPRTs as ICR
Conclusions: LPDR significantly improved both lumbopelvic stability and implant safety in all reconstruction techniques after total sacrectomy. LPDR reduced the shift-down displacement of L5, the relative sagittal rotation of L5, and the stress values at the bone-implant interface. Furthermore, in the ICR and SRR techniques, LPDR decreased the peak stress values within the rods. All four investigated LPRTs demonstrated suitability for lumbopelvic reconstruction, with the ICR technique exhibiting the highest lumbopelvic stiffness.

Clinical Significance: LPDR creates a biomechanically advantageous environment following total sacrectomy; therefore, it has the potential to impact the design of custom-made 3D-printed or traditional LPRTs. However, to confirm the findings of the current FE study, long-term clinical trials are recommended.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2024.04.024DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

lumbopelvic distance
12
total sacrectomy
12
biomechanical lumbopelvic
8
distance reduction
8
comparative finite
8
finite element
8
lumbopelvic reconstruction
8
lumbar spine
8
bony fusion
8
shift-down displacement
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!