Comprehensive Evaluation of Accessory Rod Position, Rod Material and Diameter, Use of Cross-Connectors, and Anterior Column Support in a Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy Model, Part I: Effects on Apical Rod Strain An In Vitro and In Silico Biomechanical Study

STUDY DESIGN In silico finite element study. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of six construct factors on apical rod strain in an in silico pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) model: traditional inline and alternative Ames-Deviren-Gupta (ADG) multi-rod techniques, number of accessory rods (three- vs. four-rod), rod material (cobalt-chrome [CoCr] or stainless steel [SS] vs. titanium [Ti]), rod diameter (5.5 vs. 6.35 mm), and use of cross-connectors (CC), or anterior column support (ACS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Rod fracture following lumbar PSO is frequently reported. Clinicians may modulate reconstructs with multiple rods, rod position, rod material and diameter, and with CC or ACS to reduce mechanical demand or rod contouring. A comprehensive evaluation of these features on rod strain is lacking. METHODS A finite element model (T12-S1) with intervertebral discs and ligaments was created and validated with cadaveric motion data. Apical rod strain of primary and accessory rods was collected for 96 constructs across all six construct factors, and normalized to the Ti two-rod control. RESULTS Regardless of construct features, CoCr and SS material reduced strain across all rods by 49.1% and 38.1%, respectively; increasing rod diameter from 5.5 mm to 6.35 mm rods reduced strain by 32.0%. Use of CC or lumbosacral ACS minimally affected apical rod strain (<2% difference from constructs without CC or ACS). Compared to the ADG technique, traditional inline reconstruction reduced primary rod strain by 32.2%; however, ADG primary rod required 14.2° less rod contouring. The inline technique produced asymmetrical loading between left and right rods, only when three rods were used. CONCLUSION The number of rods and position of accessory rods affected strain distribution on posterior fixation. Increasing rod diameter and using CoCr rods was most effective in reducing rod strain. Neither CC nor lumbosacral ACS affected apical rod strain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE N/A.