The biomechanical effect of lumbopelvic distance reduction on reconstruction after total sacrectomy: a comparative finite element analysis of four techniques.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Following total sacrectomy, lumbopelvic reconstruction is essential to restore continuity between the lumbar spine and pelvis. However, to achieve long-term clinical stability, bony fusion between the lumbar spine and the pelvic ring is crucial. Reduction of the lumbopelvic distance can promote successful bony fusion. Although many lumbopelvic reconstruction techniques (LPRTs) have been previously analyzed, the biomechanical effect of lumbopelvic distance reduction (LPDR) has not been investigated yet.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the biomechanical characteristics of four different LPRTs while considering the effect of LPDR.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A comparative finite element (FE) study.

METHODS: The FE models following total sacrectomy were developed to analyze four different LPRTs, with and without LPDR. The closed-loop reconstruction (CLR), the sacral-rod reconstruction (SRR), the four-rod reconstruction (FRR), and the improved compound reconstruction (ICR) techniques were analyzed in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Lumbopelvic stability was assessed through the shift-down displacement and the relative sagittal rotation of L5, while implant safety was evaluated based on the stress state at the bone-implant interface and within the rods.

RESULTS: Regardless of LPDR, both the shift-down displacement and relative sagittal rotation of L5 consistently ranked the LPRTs as ICR<SRR<FRR<CLR, with ICR being the stiffest for both parameters. LPDR decreased the shift-down displacement values by 25% in CLR, by 61% in SRR, by 15% in FRR, and by 46% in ICR, as well as reduced the relative sagittal rotation values by 21% in CLR, by 73% in SRR, by 11% in FRR, and by 53% in ICR. Considering the stress at the bone-implant interface, without LPDR, the ICR yielded the smallest stress values for flexion, lateral bending, and axial rotation with 131.4 MPa, 68.2 MPa, and 70.3 MPa, respectively, and the second smallest in extension with 36.1 MPa. Due to LPDR, these stress values were reduced by 31% in flexion, by 17% in extension, by 29% in lateral bending, and by 29% in axial rotation. Within the rods, without LPDR, the ICR yielded the smallest stress values for flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation with 346.5 MPa, 108.0 MPa, 186.2 MPa, and 199.7 MPa, respectively. With LPDR, these stress values were reduced by 16% in flexion, by 9% in extension, by 11% in lateral bending, and by 12% in axial rotation.

CONCLUSIONS: LPDR significantly improved both lumbopelvic stability and implant safety in all reconstruction techniques after total sacrectomy. LPDR reduced the shift-down displacement of L5, the relative sagittal rotation of L5, and the stress values at the bone-implant interface. Furthermore, in the ICR and SRR techniques, LPDR decreased the peak stress values within the rods. All four investigated LPRTs demonstrated suitability for lumbopelvic reconstruction, with the ICR technique exhibiting the highest lumbopelvic stiffness.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: LPDR creates a biomechanically advantageous environment following total sacrectomy; therefore, it has the potential to impact the design of custom-made 3D-printed or traditional LPRTs. However, to confirm the findings of the current FE study, long-term clinical trials are recommended.