{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03819316929856775, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011384502387073081, 'mean_word_length': 4.604938271604938, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 5, '<?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}}
Effects of facetectomy and crosslink augmentation on motion segment flexibility in posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

STUDY DESIGN
Biomechanical assessment using calf lumbar motion segments.


OBJECTIVE
To determine whether facetectomy affects the primary stability of posterior lumbar interbody fusion.


SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
To improve visualization and access to the disc space, the facet joints frequently are removed. Previous biomechanical studies have indicated a fundamental role for the facet joints in maintaining spinal segment stability.


METHODS
Single motion segments from calf lumbar spines were tested for pure-moment flexibility in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR). After testing intact, an interbody cage and pedicle screw system were implanted. Next, a bilateral facetectomy was performed, and finally a crosslink was added. Flexibility testing was repeated at each stage of implantation. Data are reported for range of motion (ROM), neutral zone (NZ), and a new compliance parameter (COM), based on the slopes of the moment-angle curve in the neutral and elastic regions.


RESULTS
With posterior lumbar interbody fusion implantation, ROM in FE was reduced 82% +/- 4% (mean +/- standard deviation) and NZ 78% +/- 7% over intact (P < 0.015: Wilcoxon). Reduction in LB was slightly more, whereas reduction in AR was considerably less and did not achieve statistical significance for NZ. After facetectomy, ROM in FE increased 0.3 degrees (P < 0.05), on average, and NZ did not change. In LB neither changed significantly. In AR, ROM increased 0.6 degrees (P < 0.05), and NZ increased 0.2 degrees (P < 0.05). The addition of a crosslink changed ROM and NZ less than 0.1 degrees in FE and LB, whereas in AR it restored half of the stability lost due to facetectomy in ROM (P < 0.05), and had a similar trendwise effect on NZ. The new compliance measure, COM, was found to agree with the direction of change in ROM more consistently than did NZ.


CONCLUSION
Facetectomy causes a nominal increase in ROM and NZ in FE and LB, which are not affected by the addition of a crosslink. Although the effect of facetectomy is greater in AR-and crosslink has a measurable restoring effect-all differences are within a few tenths of a degree under this loading paradigm. Thus, the clinical utility of adding a crosslink may not be justified based on these small biomechanical changes. COM can serve as a complement to ROM and NZ, or even as a surrogate when its 2 components are reported together, as it shows strong agreement with ROM, effectively distinguishes between lax and elastic region behaviors, and provides a measure of flexibility independent of the load range.