Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 21, 2025
An Efficient and Reproducible Protocol for Distraction Osteogenesis in a Rat Model Leading to a Functional Regenerated Femur
Published on: October 23, 2017
Proximal foundation anchor variations and their correlation with unplanned return to the operating room (UPROR) in
Fernando Rios1, Hazem B Elsebaie1, Bahar Shahidi1,2
1San Diego Spine Foundation, 6190 Cornerstone CT #212, San Diego, CA, 92121, USA.
Introduction:
The evolution of MCGR technique has led to modifications in the configuration of the proximal construct to decrease the incidence of implant-related complications (IRC) and revision surgeries. However, there is no data characterizing the performance of the most used configurations reducing the risk of complications.
Methods:
487 patients were identified from an international multicenter EOS database.
Inclusion Criteria:
EOS patients, primary dual MCGR, complete radiographs, and minimum of 2-year follow-up. 76 patients had incomplete X-rays, 5 had apical fusions, and 18 had inconclusive complications, leaving 388 patients for review. A digital spine template was created to document UIV; number of levels; number, type, and location of anchors; as well as implant configuration. First available postoperative and latest follow-up radiographs were reviewed by two senior surgeons and two spine fellows. UPROR due to IRC was defined as any change in proximal anchors between the postoperative and final follow-up radiographs.
Results:
The most common proximal construct configuration: UIV at T2 (50.0%) with 17.5% UPROR, followed by T3 (34.0%) with 12.1% UPROR; number of levels was three (57.1%) with 16.8% UPROR and two (26.0%) with 17.0% UPROR; number of proximal anchors was six (49.9%) with 14.1% UPROR and four (27.0%) with 18.3% UPROR. The most common anchors were all screws (42.0%) with 9.9% UPROR, and all hooks (26.4%) with 31.4% UPROR (P < 0.001). The construct with the lowest rate of UPROR was a UIV at T2, with six anchors (all screws) across three levels (42 cases), with 0% UPROR. Other construct combinations that yielded 0% UPROR rates were UIV of T3, six anchors (all screws) across three levels (25 cases), and a UIV of T3 with six anchors (screws and hooks) across three3 levels (9 cases).
Conclusion:
Proximal anchor configuration impacts the incidence of UPROR due to IRC in MCGR. UIV at T2 and T3 compared to T4, and the use of all screws or combination of screws and hooks compared to all hooks were associated with a lower UPROR rate. The most common construct configuration was T2 UIV, three levels, six anchors, and all screws. The use of a combination of six anchors (screws or screws and hooks) across three levels with a UIV at T2 or T3 was associated with a lower UPROR rate. Additional research is needed to further evaluate the variables contributing to configuration selection and their association with IRC.
