Posterior Lumbar Instrumentation

Published on 14/03/2015 by admin

Filed under Neurosurgery

Last modified 14/03/2015

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 0 (0 votes)

This article have been viewed 3498 times

CHAPTER 303 Posterior Lumbar Instrumentation

Posterior lumbar instrumentation is intended to promote spinal stabilization. Lumbar instability warranting instrumentation may be encountered in a variety of disorders, including trauma, degenerative disease, infection, and tumor. Rapid advances in technology and techniques have provided the surgeon with a wide array of instrumentation and applications. Although widely used, the clinical indications for posterior lumbar instrumentation remain a matter of considerable debate, highlighting the need for further high-quality clinical studies. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the indications for posterior lumbar instrumentation, to discuss the types of instrumentation available as well as the techniques for placement, and to summarize available outcomes data.

Indications for Instrumentation

Although the primary objective for posterior lumbar instrumentation is to provide stability, the indications that warrant its use are highly dependent on the underlying disorder.

Trauma

Lumbar spine trauma often requires spinal stabilization, particularly when two- or three-column injury is present. Multiple classification systems have been developed for spinal fractures, including those of Denis,1 McAfee and colleagues,2 Gertzbein and associates,3 and Magerl and coworkers.4 Most available systems suffer from one or more limitations, including a degree of complexity that limits routine clinical use, failure to include clinically relevant information such as the neurological status of the patient, and lack of guidance with regard to clinical management.5 Vaccaro and colleagues recently proposed a new classification of thoracolumbar injuries, the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS), which attempts to overcome these limitations. TLICS focuses on three parameters, with points given for the various subcategories.5 First, the injury morphology is assessed as compression without burst (1 point), compression with burst (1 point), translational-rotational (3 points), or distraction (4 points). Second, the integrity of the posterior ligamentous complex (PLC) is assessed as intact (0 points), suspected or indeterminate injury (2 points), or clearly injured (3 points). Third, the neurological status of the patient is assessed as intact (0 points), nerve root injury (2 points), complete cord or conus injury (2 points), incomplete cord or conus injury (3 points), or cauda equina injury (3 points). A TLICS of 3 or less suggests a nonoperative injury, and a score of 5 or more suggests that an operative procedure should be considered. A TLICS of 4 suggests a situation that might be managed conservatively or operatively. In addition, based on neurological status and the integrity of the PLC, Vaccaro and colleagues provided suggested surgical approaches.5

Degenerative Disease

Indications for fusion in the setting of lumbar degenerative spine disease remain matters of ongoing debate and study. Resnick and coworkers recently provided a series of recommendations regarding this population based on the best available medical literature (Table 303-1).622 In addition, lumbar instrumentation is typically necessary to maintain correction and stability in patients with degenerative scoliosis or iatrogenic flat back syndrome who fail conservative management and desire surgical treatment.2326

TABLE 303-1 Summary of Guidelines for the Performance of Fusion Procedures for Degenerative Disease of the Lumbar Spine

DISORDER RECOMMENDATION
Intractable low back pain (LBP) without stenosis or spondylolisthesis Class I medical evidence reported in support of use of lumbar fusion as a treatment standard for carefully selected patients with LBP intractable to best medical management.16 Although multiple reports suggest improved clinical outcomes with addition of pedicle screw fixation, there are conflicting findings from similarly classified sources (mostly class II and III). It is recommended that pedicle screw supplementation of posterolateral fusion (PLF) be reserved for patients with increased risk for nonunion when treated with PLF (e.g., smokers and those undergoing revision surgery or suffering from systemic conditions associated with poor bone healing).11
Lumbar disk herniation and radiculopathy No convincing evidence to support routine use of lumbar fusion (with or without instrumentation) at time of primary lumbar disk excision. Conflicting class III evidence suggests possible benefit with fusion in patients with preoperative lumbar instability, substantial chronic axial back pain, or recurrent disk herniation.15
Lumbar stenosis and spondylolisthesis Best medical evidence in literature confirms utility of fusion for improving patient outcome following decompression for stenosis associated with spondylolisthesis. Medical evidence related to use of pedicle screw fixation in this setting is class III and is inconsistent. Consistent benefit of pedicle screw fixation has been reported in setting of preoperative or iatrogenic instability or kyphosis.14
Lumbar stenosis following decompression, without spondylolisthesis Best medical evidence does not indicate that fusion (with or without instrumentation) provides any benefit over decompression alone for treatment of lumbar stenosis following decompression in the absence of preoperative deformity or instability. Class III evidence suggests that patients undergoing wide decompression resulting in iatrogenic instability may benefit from fusion.13

Data from references 6 to 22.

Dynamic stabilization devices are designed to maintain or restore normal spinal motion. Although the indications for these devices are still being clarified, many of the applications are related to degenerative disease.2732 Khoueir and associates recently provided a salient overview of the disorders in which these devices are expected to play a role: (1) controlling motion in the iatrogenically destabilized spine such as may occur with decompression procedures, (2) augmentation of interbody fusion with promotion of increased anterior load sharing, (3) protection or restoration of degenerated facet joints and intervertebral disks, (4) as part of a 360-degree circumferential segment reconstruction with motion preservation, (5) reduction of destructive forces at instrumentation-bone interfaces in patients with osteopenia or osteoporosis, and (6) reduction of fusion-related sequelae such as adjacent-level degeneration and pseudarthosis.33

Tumor

Surgical treatment of primary and metastatic spine tumors may be indicated to alleviate pain, provide stability, and decompress the neural elements.44 The type, location, and degree of destruction of the tumor, as well as the overall treatment goals of surgery, determine whether the optimal approach is anterior, posterior, or combined anterior and posterior.45 For metastatic disease, it must be remembered that the primary goal of surgery is typically palliation, and the goal should be maximization of quality of life with minimization of surgical complications.46

Posterior Lumbar Instrumentation

Brief Overview of Historical Instrumentation

Modern attempts at spine instrumentation began in the 1940s with the Harrington system, which used a distraction-compression rod.47 Although Harrington rods represented a significant advancement, their limitations soon became evident. Overdistraction frequently produced flat back syndrome, and neural compression by the laminar hooks and hook failure were not uncommon. In addition, the Harrington system lacked the ability to apply segmental corrective forces, although the addition of segmental wiring provided limited segmental correction.47

The Luque rod system was developed as an alternative to the Harrington system.48 Luque rods require fixation points above and below the affected segment and employ sublaminar wires to provide segmental fixation. The limitations of this system included neurological deficits associated with sublaminar wire passage or migration of the rods through a laminectomy defect.49 In addition, this system provided very limited resistance to axial loads, limiting its utility in cases in which the anterior column was compromised.

The Cotrel-Dubousset (CD) system, developed in the late 1980s, consisted of multiple laminar hooks that were connected by a rod.50 The CD system improved on the Harrington and Luque systems by requiring fixation of fewer segments above and below the diseased level. Pedicle screws were used in place of hooks at levels requiring laminectomy.

Metallic Pedicle Screw-Rod Systems

Boucher51 initially reported the use of pedicle screws for spinal fixation in the early 1950s, and Roy-Camille52 later popularized their use for lumbar fracture, pseudarthrosis, metastases, primary spine tumor, lumbosacral fusion, and spondylolisthesis. Pedicle screws offer considerable segmental control and enable fusion of fewer levels than was required with Harrington or Luque rods. Polyaxial screw heads have been introduced to facilitate connection of the screws to the rod or plate system.53 Care must be used when placing pedicle screws in order to prevent injury to the neural structures and dura.

A variety of materials are used to construct pedicle screw-rod systems. Until the late 1990s, pedicle screw-rod systems were primarily composed of stainless steel. Given the considerable interference of stainless steel on computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies, titanium-alloy systems were developed. Titanium-alloy implants have been shown to be compatible with high-quality MR imaging and to result in a significant reduction of artifacts on CT imaging.54,55 In addition, titanium-alloy implants have been shown to produce greater bone ongrowth compared with stainless steel implants, resulting in greater bone-pedicle screw fixation.56 However, studies have suggested that the fatigue life of titanium spinal implants is inferior to that of steel, especially at notch sites resulting from rod contouring.57,58 Cobalt-chromium rods were designed to offer improved mechanical strength compared with titanium-alloy, while still maintaining improved imaging characteristics relative to stainless steel. Significantly elevated levels of cobalt and chromium ions have been identified in the serum of patients following implantation of metal-on-metal Maverick-type artificial lumbar disks.59 Whether elevated levels of these ions are encountered following implantation of cobalt-chromium rods and whether there are any long-term implications remain to be studied.

Polyetheretherketone Rods

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK), a synthetic semicrystalline thermoplastic polymer, has been used in cervical and lumbar interbody cages since the 1980s.32,60 The modulus of elasticity of PEEK is between that of cortical and cancellous bone, which simulates the load characteristics of the spine. PEEK rods have recently been developed and provide a semirigid alternative to metallic-based rods. PEEK rods are used with a modified top-loading metallic screw (CD Horizon Legacy; Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Memphis, TN.) and allow limited motion while still providing resistance to marked flexion, extension, axial loading, and lateral rotation.32

There are several potential applications for PEEK rods.32 First, they may be used in the treatment of spinal instability, such as spondylolisthesis or degenerative disk disease, to subject adjacent levels to less stress while still facilitating osseous fusion. Second, a PEEK rod and a domino connector may be used to treat adjacent-level disease following prior instrumented fusion. Third, a PEEK rod may be used to provide a tension band following decompression in a patient with spondylolisthesis in which arthrodesis is not the objective. Although there are several potential theoretical benefits of semirigid fixation with PEEK rods, supporting literature demonstrating these benefits remains very limited at this time.32

Dynamic Stabilization

Posterior dynamic stabilization is one of the most rapidly evolving fields in spinal surgery.33 As an alternative to fusion, dynamic stabilization devices are intended to maintain or restore intervertebral motion and simulate the behavior of the normal spine. Khoueir and colleagues recently described a classification system for posterior dynamic stabilization devices.33 This system divides these devices into three categories: interspinous spacer devices, pedicle screw-rod–based devices, and total facet replacement systems.

Implantation Techniques

During the past 5 to 10 years, rapid advances have been made in techniques for implantation of posterior lumbar instrumentation. One of the most significant advances has been the development of minimally invasive approaches. Although the standard open techniques remain in widespread use, minimally invasive techniques are gaining in popularity.61,62

Open Technique

The patient is first placed under general anesthesia, intubated, then positioned prone on a radiolucent surgical table, such as a Jackson table. Pressure points are appropriately padded, and the surgical field is prepared and draped in a sterile fashion. Unless contraindicated, use of a blood product recycling unit should be considered, although a recent cost-benefit analysis questioned its cost-effectiveness.63 Fluoroscopy is used to mark an incision that ends about 5 to 7 cm above and below the vertebral levels to be instrumented. A midline skin incision is made, and subperiosteal muscle dissection is performed to expose the segments to be instrumented. The dissection is extended to expose the lateral tips of the transverse processes.

Once adequate bony exposure is achieved, the external landmarks for pedicle screw placement are identified. In the lumbar spine, the starting point for pedicle cannulation is typically defined as the intersection of the axial plane through the middle of the transverse process and the sagittal plane through the superior facet (Fig. 303-1A). The entry site for the first sacral pedicle is at the inferolateral portion of the superior S1 facet (Fig. 303-1D). Fluoroscopy is used to confirm each entry site, and a high-speed drill is then used to create a pilot hole just through the cortex. A pedicle finder is then gently advanced through the pilot hole to cannulate the pedicle and into the vertebral body (see Fig. 303-1A). Fluoroscopy can be used to determine the sagittal and axial trajectories. A ball-tip feeler is then used to palpate the trajectory created by the pedicle finder to assess for breaches. Recannulation of the pedicle using a modified trajectory may be necessary if a breach is identified. The trajectory is then prepared with a tap (Fig. 303-1B), followed by reassessment for evidence of breaches and introduction of the screw (Fig. 303-1C). Preoperative imaging can be used to preselect screw sizes, with the desired depth being about 70% to 80% of the vertebral body. To avoid injury to vascular and visceral structures, screws should not breach the anterior aspect of the vertebral body. Once all screws have been placed, the desired rod length is measured, cut, and contoured. The rod is secured into place with locking nuts, and levels may be distracted or compressed as indicated (Fig. 303-1D to F). Pedicle screws may be either monaxial or polyaxial, with the latter deigned to facilitate rod placement. One or more cross-linking devices may be used to link the rods horizontally. Triggered electromyographic stimulation has been suggested as an adjunct to optimize safe pedicle screw placement.64,65

Minimally Invasive Technique

Minimally invasive surgical techniques have been developed for posterior instrumentation of the lumbar spine to reduce the morbidity associated with the traditional open surgical approach.62 Potential advantages of using a minimally invasive approach for instrumentation include reduced blood loss, decreased infection risk, and less soft tissue and muscle trauma. Minimally invasive techniques for the placement of pedicle screw-rod systems in the lumbar spine have been previously described.6669 The best documented approach uses the bull’s-eye technique for placement of pedicle screws.

Similar to the open technique, the patient is first placed under general anesthesia, intubated, then positioned prone on a radiolucent surgical table, such as a Jackson table. Pressure points are appropriately padded, and the surgical field is prepared and draped in a sterile fashion. Anteroposterior fluoroscopy is then aligned to provide an en face view of the pedicles at the first desired level of instrumentation (Fig. 303-2A). Care must be taken to ensure that the pedicles are well aligned. At the working vertebral level, both the superior and inferior end plates should be aligned, and the spinous process should be in the midline. In addition, the pedicle should be visualized in the upper half of the vertebral body.

Using fluoroscopic imaging, the tip of a Jamshidi needle is placed on the skin overlying the center of the pedicle, and a scalpel is used to make approximately a 2-cm vertical skin incision, centered at the tip of the needle. The Jamshidi needle is then carefully advanced through the incision, directed toward the underlying pedicle. Fluoroscopy and tactile feedback are used to place the tip of the Jamshidi needle in the center of the pedicle. The needle is then aligned to provide an en face view of both the needle and the pedicle (see Fig. 303-2A). A K wire is then driven about 2 cm beyond the tip of the Jamshidi needle (Fig. 303-2B). Next, the Jamshidi needle is removed, leaving the K wire in place (Fig. 303-2A to C). A K wire is similarly placed in each pedicle planned for instrumentation. On lateral-view fluoroscopy, the K wires are then driven to a depth of about two thirds of the vertebral body (Fig. 303-2D). A cannulated tap is passed over each K wire and used to prepare the trajectory (Fig. 303-2E), followed by placement of cannulated pedicle screws (Fig. 303-2F). Efforts have been made to develop accurate navigation systems for minimally invasive pedicle screw placement to reduce radiation exposure for both the surgeon and patient.7073

A variety of systems have been developed for minimally invasive rod passage following pedicle screw placement. Typically, minimally invasive rod passage is based on specific screw extenders that are attached to the screws, extend out of the wound, facilitate rod passage, and are then removed after the rod is secured in place (Fig. 303-3A and B). One of the first systems developed was the Sextant (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.), which can be used to instrument either one or two levels (see Fig. 303-3

Buy Membership for Neurosurgery Category to continue reading. Learn more here