Purpose

To assess biomechanics of a lumbar PSO stabilized with different multi-rod constructs (4-, 5-, 6-rods) using satellite and accessory rods.

Methods

A validated spinopelvic finite element model with a L3 PSO was used to evaluate the following constructs: 2 primary rods T10-pelvis ("Control"), two satellite rods (4-rod), two satellite rods + one accessory rod (5-rod), or two satellite rods + two accessory rods (6-rod). Data recorded included: ROM T10-S1 and L2-L4, von Mises stresses on primary, satellite, and accessory rods, factor of safety yield stress, and force across the PSO surfaces. Percent differences relative to Control were calculated.

Results

Compared to Control, 4-rods increased PSO flexion and extension. Lower PSO ROMs were observed for 5- and 6-rods compared to 4-rods. However, 4-rod (348.6 N) and 5-rod (343.2 N) showed higher PSO forces than 2-rods (336 N) and 6-rods had lower PSO forces (324.2 N). 5- and 6-rods led to the lowest rod von Mises stresses across the PSO. 6-rod had the maximum factor of safety on the primary rods.

Conclusions

In this finite element analysis, 4-rods reduced stresses on primary rods across a lumbar PSO. Although increased rigidity afforded by 5- and 6-rods decreased rod stresses, it resulted in less load transfer to the anterior vertebral column (particularly for 6-rod), which may not be favorable for the healing of the anterior column. A balance between the construct's rigidity and anterior load sharing is essential.

Study design

A literature review.

Objectives

An evaluation of the contaminants prevalent on implants used for surgery and the aseptic methods being employed against them.

Methods

PubMed was searched for articles published between 2000 and 2017 for studies evaluating the contaminants present on spine implants, and associated pre- and intraoperative implant processing and handling methodology suggested to avoid them. Systematic reviews, observational studies, bench-top studies, and expert opinions were included.

Results

Eleven studies were identified whose major focus was the asepsis of implants to reduce the incidence of surgical site infection incidences during surgery. These studies measured the colony forming units of bacteria on sterilized implants and/or gloves from the surgeon, scrub nurse, and assistants, as well as reductions of surgical site infection rates in spine surgery due to changes in implant handling techniques. Additionally, the search included assessments of endotoxins and carbohydrates present on reprocessed implants. The suggested changes to surgical practice based on these studies included handling implants with only fresh gloves, keeping implants covered until the immediate time of use, reducing operating room traffic, avoiding reprocessing of implants (ie, providing terminally sterilized implants), and avoiding touching the implants altogether.

Conclusions

Both reprocessing (preoperative) and handling (intraoperative) of implants seem to lead to contamination of sterilized implants. Using a terminally sterilized device may mitigate reprocessing (preoperative implant prophylaxis), whereas the use of fresh gloves for handling each implant and/or a permanent shielding technique (intraoperative implant prophylaxis) could potentially avoid recontamination at the theatre.