Does the anterior column realignment technique influences the stresses on posterior instrumentation in sagittal imbalance correction? A biomechanical, finite-element analysis of L5-S1 ALIF and L3-4 lateral ACR (Aug, 10.1007/s43390-022-00567-9, 2022)

Study design Biomechanical finite-element study. Objective To directly compare the biomechanical effects of two different techniques for sagittal plane correction of adult spine deformity based on the anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL) resection and use of hyperlordotic cages, namely, the anterior column realignment (ACR) in L3-4, and ALIF in L5-S1 in terms of primary stability and rod stresses using finite-element models. Methods A finite-element model of the thoracolumbar spine was used to perform the analysis. Starting from this "intact" model, three further models were constructed through the insertion of spinal instrumentation, i.e., pedicle screws, rods and cages: 1) posterior instrumentation between T9 and S1 (referred to as "T9-S1"); 2) posterior instrumentation T9-S1 + Hyperlordotic (26 degrees) ALIF cage in L5-S1 ("ALIF"); 3) posterior instrumentation T9-S1 + Hyperlordotic (30 degrees) ACR cage in L3-4 ("ACR"). These models were studied by simulations applying, alternately, a pure moment of 7.5 Nm between the three planes of motion (flexion, extension, lateral bending, and bilateral axial rotation), uniformly distributed over the upper surface of the T9 thoracic vertebra. A total of 24 simulations were performed (6 per models). Results All models presented a significant reduced ROM when compared to the intact model; the ROM reduction was higher both at L3-4 in the ACR model and at L5-S1 in the ALIF model. At L3-4, the ACR model had, in all cases, the lowest maximum values of Von Mises stresses on the rods, especially in flexion-extension. At L4-5, the ALIF model had the lowest stresses during flexion-extension and axial rotation, while the ACR model had the lowest stresses during lateral bending. At L5-S1, the ALIF model had, in all cases, the lowest stresses on the rods. Conclusions This finite-element study showed how both ACR at L3-4 and ALIF-ACR at L5-S1 are effective in restoring lumbar lordosis (LL), stabilizing the spine and reducing stress on posterior rods at the index level when compared to a simple fixation model. Interestingly, ALIF-ACR reduces rod stress even at L4-5 in flexion-extension and axial rotation, possibly due to a better distribution of LL, especially on the lower arch, while ACR reduces the stress at L4-5 in lateral bending, possibly thanks to the larger footprint of the cage that increases the area of contact with the lateral side of the endplates.