IntroductionSacroiliac (SI) joint pain has become a recognized factor in low back pain. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of a minimally invasive surgical SI joint fusion procedure on the in vitro biomechanics of the SI joint before and after cyclic loading.MethodsSeven cadaveric specimens were tested under the following conditions: intact, posterior ligaments (PL) and pubic symphysis (PS) cut, treated (three implants placed), and after 5,000 cycles of flexion–extension. The range of motion (ROM) in flexion–extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation was determined with an applied 7.5 N · m moment using an optoelectronic system. Results for each ROM were compared using a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a Holm–Šidák post-hoc test.ResultsPlacement of three fusion devices decreased the flexion–extension ROM. Lateral bending and axial rotation were not significantly altered. All PL/PS cut and post-cyclic ROMs were larger than in the intact condition. The 5,000 cycles of flexion–extension did not lead to a significant increase in any ROMs.DiscussionIn the current model, placement of three 7.0 mm iFuse Implants significantly decreased the flexion–extension ROM. Joint ROM was not increased by 5,000 flexion–extension cycles.

N/A.

OBJECT The effects of obesity on lumbar biomechanics are not fully understood. The aims of this study were to analyze the biomechanical differences between cadaveric L4–5 lumbar spine segments from a large group of nonobese (body mass index [BMI] < 30 kg/m2) and obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) donors and to determine if there were any radiological differences between spines from nonobese and obese donors using MR imaging. METHODS A total of 168 intact L4–5 spinal segments (87 males and 81 females) were tested using pure-moment loading, simulating flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Axial compression tests were performed on 38 of the specimens. Sex, age, and BMI were analyzed with biomechanical parameters using 1-way ANOVA, Pearson correlation, and multiple regression analyses. MR images were obtained in 12 specimens (8 from obese and 4 from nonobese donors) using a 3-T MR scanner. RESULTS The segments from the obese male group allowed significantly greater range of motion (ROM) than those from the nonobese male group during axial rotation (p = 0.018), while there was no difference between segments from obese and nonobese females (p = 0.687). There were no differences in ROM between spines from obese and nonobese donors during flexion-extension or lateral bending for either sex. In the nonobese population, the ROM during axial rotation was significantly greater for females than for males (p = 0.009). There was no significant difference between sexes in the obese population (p = 0.892). Axial compressive stiffness was significantly greater for the obese than the nonobese population for both the female-only group and the entire study group (p < 0.01); however, the difference was nonsignificant in the male population (p = 0.304). Correlation analysis confirmed a significant negative correlation between BMI and resistance to deformation during axial compression in the female group (R = −0.65, p = 0.004), with no relationship in the male group (R = 0.03, p = 0.9). There was also a significant negative correlation between ROM during flexion-extension and BMI for the female group (R = −0.38, p = 0.001), with no relationship for the male group (R = 0.06, p = 0.58). Qualitative analysis using MR imaging indicated greater facet degeneration and a greater incidence of disc herniations in the obese group than in the control group. CONCLUSIONS Based on flexibility and compression tests, lumbar spinal segments from obese versus nonobese donors seem to behave differently, biomechanically, during axial rotation and compression. The differences are more pronounced in women. MR imaging suggests that these differences may be due to greater facet degeneration and an increased amount of disc herniation in the spines from obese individuals.