Evidence Hub

Novel method of iliac accessory rods for rod fracture prevention in adult deformity surgery: a case series of 82 patients with outcomes and complications

Connor Berlin, David Ben-Israel, J. P. Sardi, Brian J. Park, Chun-Po Yen, M. Shaffrey, Sufyan Ibrahim, Justin S Smith

Journal of Neurosurgery : Spine, 2024

82 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Primary rod fracture after surgery for adult spinal deformity (ASD) is a leading cause of revision, with recent prospective multicenter fracture rates reported at 11%-14% by 2 years. Consequently, the addition of supplemental rods has been explored to reduce fractures. Here the authors describe their experience with a novel iliac accessory rod technique in which each accessory rod anchors to an independent iliac bolt caudally via lateral connector, and attaches to the primary rod rostrally via side-to-side connector.

METHODS

This retrospective, single-center case series included patients who underwent thoracolumbar/lumbar fusion for ASD between March 2019 and August 2023. Data on baseline demographics, radiographic parameters, surgical characteristics, complications, rod fracture, and revision rates were collected. Paired, 2-tailed t-tests were used to compare pre- and postoperative radiographic outcomes. Rod fracture rates were compared to prior investigations via chi-square goodness of fit testing. The technique for iliac accessory rod placement is described.

RESULTS

The study consisted of 82 patients (mean age 66 years, 51% female, 26% with prior fusion) with a median follow-up of 2 years (IQR 28-104 weeks). A total of 50 patients (61%) had ≥ 2-year follow-up. Each surgery involved an average of 4 posterior column osteotomies and 8 segments. Iliac accessory rods were cobalt chromium and were placed bilaterally in 87% of constructs. Postoperative alignment…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 82 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free