The Spine Journal
Volume 9, Issue 10, October 2009, Pages 846-853

Junction kinematics between proximal mobile and distal fused lumbar segments: biomechanical analysis of pedicle and hook constructs

Michio Hongo MDa, Ralph E. Gay MD, DCb, Kristin D. Zhao MAa, Brice Ilharreborde MDa, Paul M. Huddleston MDc, Lawrence J. Berglund BSa, Kai-Nan An PhDa and Chunfeng Zhao MDa, ,

aBiomechanics Laboratory, Division of Orthopedic Research, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street, SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
bDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
cDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Background context

Biomechanical studies have demonstrated increased motion in motion segments adjacent to instrumentation or arthrodesis. The effects of different configurations of hook and pedicle screw instrumentation on the biomechanical behaviors of adjacent segments have not been well documented.

Purpose

To compare the effect of three different fusion constructs on adjacent segment motion proximal to lumbar arthrodesis.

Methods

Seven human cadaver lumbar spines were tested in the following conditions: 1) intact; 2) L4–L5-simulated circumferential fusion (CF); 3) L4–L5-simulated fusion extended to L3 with pedicle screws; and 4) L4–L5-simulated fusion extended to L3 with sublaminar hooks. Rotation data at L2–L3, L3–L4, and L4–L5 were analyzed using both load limit control (±7.5 N·m) and displacement limit control (truncated to the greatest common angular motion of the segments for each specimen).

Results

Both the L3–L4 and L2–L3 motion segments above the L4–L5-simulated CF had significantly increased motion in all loading planes compared with the intact spine, but no significant differences were found between L3–L4 and L2–L3 motion. When the L3–L4 segment was stabilized with pedicle screws, its motion was significantly smaller in flexion, lateral bending, and axial rotation than when stabilized with sublaminar hooks. At the same time, L2–L3 motion was significantly larger in flexion, lateral bending, and axial rotation in the pedicle screw model compared with the sublaminar hook construct.

Conclusions

The use of sublaminar hooks to stabilize the motion segment above a circumferential lumbar fusion reduced motion at the next cephalad segment compared with a similar construct using pedicle screws. The semiconstrained hook enhancement may be considered if a patient is at a risk of adjacent segment disorders.

Biomechanics; Lumbar; Arthrodesis; Adjacent segment; Instrumentation