{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01854714064914992, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005409582689335394, 'mean_word_length': 5.225961538461538, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of lumbosacral fixation devices.

Fusion of L4 and L5 to the sacrum has a high incidence of success. Using conventional methods, nonunion is common when long scoliosis fusions are extended to the sacrum. Three methods of instrumentation for fusing the lumbar spine to the sacrum were compared on a spine simulator test stand. Harrington distraction rods from the sacral ala to L1, Luque rods from L1 to the sacrum, and Harrington compression rods from L1 to the sacrum were tested. The use of a spine instrumentation test stand discounted biologic variation in spinal structure. Sequential loading of each test stand-instrumentation construct in torsion, flexion, extension, and lateral bending gave stiffness constants (Ks) for each test mode. Test values had reproducibility of greater than 94%. Ks illustrates the inability of Harrington distraction rods to the sacrum to resist flexion and torsion, but the ability to resist lateral bend and extension. Harrington compression rod and Luque rod constructs have equivalent stiffness in flexion and torsion. Harrington compression rods efficiently resist extension, and Luque rods resist lateral bending. Harrington distraction rods have limited use in lumbosacral junction fixation other than to correct and resist lateral bending.