Biomechanical Advantages of Novel Duet Screws Plus Bilateral Satellite Rods Fixation in the Correction Surgery for Adult Spinal Deformity

Abstract

Purpose: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients undergoing pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) with long fusion to the pelvis have a high risk of rod failure at the PSO level or adjacent areas. This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical advantages of novel duet screws (multiaxial screws with dual heads) plus satellite rods in ASD correction using finite element models and cadaveric specimens.

Methods: A lumbar-pelvis finite element model was constructed, and Von Mises equivalent stress was used to analyze the structural stress under different fixation constructs. Six human cadaveric spine segments (T11-S2) were selected to validate the finite element results. L3 PSO was performed, with posterior fixation from L1 to pelvis using S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) screws, and satellite rods (L2-L4) were connected to the primary rods using duet screws. Three fixation constructs were evaluated: two rods (Group A), three rods (Group B), and four rods (Group C). In Group B, a biomechanical test was performed on two sides: single rod side (Group B-S) and double rods side (Group B-D). In vitro motion tests were performed under pure moments in lateral bending (LB), flexion/extension (FE), and axial rotation (AR) to measure the range of motion. Rod strain was measured at L3 and S2.

Results: Finite element analysis revealed stress concentration near the PSO site, the screw bases, and the L5-S1 region. The use of duet screws with satellite rods significantly reduced primary rod stress. Cadaveric tests showed that all fixation constructs significantly reduced motion in LB, FE, and AR compared to the intact condition (p < 0.001). No significant differences in total motion or motion at the upper lumbar segments (L1-L3) were observed among the three groups, but differences were found in the lower lumbar segments (L4 and L5) and the sacrum (p < 0.007). Increasing the number of satellite rods significantly decreased rod strain (p < 0.004). Group B-D showed significantly lower rod strain compared to Group B-S (p < 0.042), indicating that satellite rods combined with duet screws were highly effective in reducing primary rod strain at L3. Satellite rods also reduced primary rod strain at the sacrum.

Conclusions: This study supports clinical practice, providing biomechanical evidence for using four-rod constructs with duet screw-based satellite rods in L3 PSO and long fusion. Satellite rods dispersed rod strain, potentially reducing pseudarthrosis and rod breakage at PSO and sacrum without compromising spinal motion.

Trial Registration: Registered in ClinicalTrials (NCT06144879)

Keywords

adult spinal deformity / cadaveric biomechanics / duet screws / finite element analysis / pedicle subtraction osteotomy / S2-alar-iliac screws / satellite rods

References

[1] H. J. Kim, J. H. Yang, D.-G. Chang, et al., “Adult Spinal Deformity: Current Concepts and Decision-Making Strategies for Management,” Asian Spine Journal 14, no. 6 (2020): 886-897, https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2020.0568.

[2] B. G. Diebo, N. V. Shah, O. Boachie-Adjei, et al., “Adult Spinal Deformity,” Lancet 394, no. 10193 (2019): 160-172.

[3] F. H. Shen, J. R. Mason, A. L. Shimer, and V. M. Arlet, “Pelvic Fixation for Adult Scoliosis,” European Spine Journal 22, no. Suppl 2 (2013): S265-S275.

[4] J. S. Smith, M. P. Kelly, E. L. Yanik, et al., “Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment for Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis at 5-Year Follow-Up: Durability of Outcomes and Impact of Treatment-Related Serious Adverse Events,” Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine 35, no. 1 (2021): 67-79, https://thejns.org/spine/view/journals/j-neurosurg-spine/35/1/article-p67.xml.

[5] P. G. Passias, O. Krol, L. Passfall, et al., “Three-Column Osteotomy in Adult Spinal Deformity: An Analysis of Temporal Trends in Usage and Outcomes,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 104, no. 21 (2022): 1895-1904.

[6] Z. Zhu, C. X. Zhang, Y. Qiu, et al., “Adding Satellite Rods to Standard Two-Rod Construct With the Use of Duet Screws: An Effective Technique to Improve Surgical Outcomes and Preventing Proximal Junctional Kyphosis in Posterior-Only Correction of Scheuermann Kyphosis,” Spine 43, no. 13 (2018): E758-E765, https://journals.lww.com/00007632-201807010-00009.

[7] C. Berlin, D. Ben-Israel, J. P. Sardi, et al., “Novel Method of Iliac Accessory Rods for Rod Fracture Prevention in Adult Deformity Surgery: A Case Series of 82 Patients With Outcomes and Complications,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 26 (2024): 1-9.

[8] D. W. Hallager, M. Gehrchen, B. Dahl, et al., “Use of Supplemental Short Pre-Contoured Accessory Rods and Cobalt Chrome Alloy Posterior Rods Reduces Primary Rod Strain and Range of Motion Across the Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy Level: An In Vitro Biomechanical Study,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41, no. 7 (2016): E388-E395.

[9] K. A. Mayo, “Fractures of the Acetabulum,” Orthopedic Clinics of North America 18, no. 1 (1987): 43-57.

[10] N. Newell, D. Rivera Tapia, T. Rahman, S. Lim, G. D. O'Connell, and T. P. Holsgrove, “Influence of Testing Environment and Loading Rate on Intervertebral Disc Compressive Mechanics: An Assessment of Repeatability at Three Different Laboratories,” JOR Spine 3, no. 3 (2020): e21110.

[11] C. S. Davis, Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Repeated Measurements (Springer, 2002), 415.

[12] L. La Barbera, M. Brayda-Bruno, C. Liebsch, et al., “Biomechanical Advantages of Supplemental Accessory and Satellite Rods With and Without Interbody Cages Implantation for the Stabilization of Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy,” European Spine Journal 27, no. 9 (2018): 2357-2366.

[13] E. Kobayashi, T. J. Wang, H. Doi, T. Yoneyama, and H. Hamanaka, “Mechanical Properties and Corrosion Resistance of Ti-6Al-7Nb Alloy Dental Castings,” Journal of Materials Science. Materials in Medicine 9, no. 10 (1998): 567-574.

[14] J. M. Jung, S. J. Hyun, K. J. Kim, and T. A. Jahng, “Rod Fracture After Multiple-Rod Constructs for Adult Spinal Deformity,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 32, no. 3 (2020): 407-414.

[15] B. Lazaro, J. P. Sardi, J. S. Smith, et al., “Proximal Junctional Failure in Primary Thoracolumbar Fusion/Fixation to the Sacrum/Pelvis for Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis: Long-Term Follow-Up of a Prospective Multicenter Cohort of 160 Patients,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 38, no. 3 (2023): 319-330.

[16] J. S. Smith, C. I. Shaffrey, E. Klineberg, et al., “Complication Rates Associated With 3-Column Osteotomy in 82 Adult Spinal Deformity Patients: Retrospective Review of a Prospectively Collected Multicenter Consecutive Series With 2-Year Follow-Up,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 27, no. 4 (2017): 444-457.

[17] P. K. Nilssen, N. Narendran, D. L. Skaggs, et al., “Long-Term Reoperation Risk of Thoracic to Pelvis Instrumentation for Spinal Deformity: A Longitudinal Study of 7,062 Patients,” European Spine Journal 34 (2024): 1034-1041.

[18] K. Y. Lee, J. H. Lee, K. C. Kang, S. K. Im, H. S. Lim, and S. W. Choi, “Strategies for Prevention of Rod Fracture in Adult Spinal Deformity: Cobalt Chrome Rod, Accessory Rod Technique, and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 34, no. 5 (2021): 706-715.

[19] S. Gupta, M. S. Eksi, C. P. Ames, et al., “A Novel 4-Rod Technique Offers Potential to Reduce Rod Breakage and Pseudarthrosis in Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomies for Adult Spinal Deformity Correction,” Operative Neurosurgery (Hagerstown) 14, no. 4 (2018): 449-456.

[20] I. S. S. Group, M. C. Gupta, J. Henry, et al., “Reducing Rod Breakage and Nonunion in Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy: The Importance of Rod Number and Configuration in 264 Patients With 2-Year Follow-Up,” Spine Journal 15, no. 10 (2015): S154-S155, https://www.thespinejournalonline.com/article/S1529-9430(15)00852-9/abstract.

[21] G. Pivazyan, C. G. Winters, D. M. Brooks, F. A. Sandhu, and B. W. Cunningham, “Biomechanical Analysis of 2 Versus 4 Rods Across the Cervicothoracic Junction in a Human Cadaveric Model,” Neurosurgery 94, no. 1 (2024): 217-225.

[22] J. K. Scheer, J. A. Tang, V. Deviren, et al., “Biomechanical Analysis of Revision Strategies for Rod Fracture in Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy,” Neurosurgery 69, no. 1 (2011): 164-172, discussion 172.

[23] T. Wang, H. Liu, Z. Zheng, et al., “Biomechanical Effect of 4-Rod Technique on Lumbosacral Fixation: An in Vitro Human Cadaveric Investigation,” Spine 38, no. 15 (2013): E925-E929.

[24] B. Shi, D. Liu, Z. Zhu, et al., “Sequential Correction Technique in Degenerative Scoliosis With Type C Coronal Imbalance: A Comparison With Traditional 2-Rod Technique,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 36, no. 6 (2022): 1005-1011.

[25] H. Bao, Z. Liu, Y. Zhang, et al., “Sequential Correction Technique to Avoid Postoperative Global Coronal Decompensation in Rigid Adult Spinal Deformity: A Technical Note and Preliminary Results,” European Spine Journal 28, no. 9 (2019): 2179-2186, http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00586-019-06043-9.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2025 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.