Study design: Data was gathered from biomechanical testing of 10 thoracic human cadaveric spines. Spines were tested intact and with a Luque rectangle fixed with wire or cable.
Objectives: To compare the rigidity of fixation and intraspinal penetration of sublaminar monofilament wire and multistrand cable under identical conditions using human cadaveric spines.
Summary of background data: Reports of neurologic and mechanical complications associated with sublaminar wiring techniques have led to the recent development of more flexible multistrand cable systems. The relative performance of flexible cable versus monofilament wire has not been explored fully in a controlled mechanical environment.
Methods: A servohydraulic mechanical testing machine was used to measure the static mechanical stiffness of sublaminar wire or cable fixation in conjunction with a Luque rectangle for thoracic human cadaveric spine segments in flexion-extension and torsion modes. Cyclic testing was performed in the flexion-extension mode. Intraspinal penetration of wires and cables was measured.
Results: Spine fixation with sublaminar wire and cable resulted in constructs of equal stiffness in flexion-extension and torsion modes. Cyclic testing also indicated similar fatigue profiles for wire- and cable-instrumented spines. Wire and cable fixed spines displayed greater stiffness than the intact spines. Cable encroachment of the spinal canal was less than that seen with wire.
Conclusions: Sublaminar multistrand cable may be a rational alternative to monofilament wire in segmental spinal instrumentation because it provides less encroachment into the spinal canal. Further, cadaveric spines instrumented with wire and cable display equivalent mechanical behavior, statically and under cyclic loading. The potential advantages of cable, however, must be balanced against a substantial increase in cost relative to wire.