Abstract
Lumbosacral instrumentation continues to be challenging due to complex biomechanical force distributions and poor sacral bone quality. Various techniques have therefore been established. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of patients treated with S2-alar-iliac (S2AI), S2-alar (S2A), and iliac (I) instrumentation as the most caudal level. Sixty patients underwent one of the 3 techniques between January 2012 and June 2017 (S2AI 18 patients, S2A 20 patients, I 22 patients). Mean age was 70.4 ± 8.5 years. Screw loosening (SL) and sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain were evaluated during the course at 3-month and maximum follow-up (FU). All patients completed 3-month FU, the mean FU period was 2.5 ± 1.5 years (p = 0.38), and a median of 5 segments was operated on (p = 0.26), respectively. Bone mineral density (BMD), derived opportunistically from computed tomography (CT), did not significantly differ between the groups (p = 0.66), but cages were more frequently implanted in patients of the S2A group (p = 0.04). SL of sacral or iliac screws was more common in patients of the S2A and I groups compared with the S2AI group (S2AI 16.7%, S2A 55.0%, I 27.3% of patients; p = 0.03). SIJ pain was more often improved in the S2AI group not only after 3 months but also at maximum FU (S2AI 61.1%, S2A 25.0%, I 22.7% of patients showing improvement; p = 0.02). Even in shorter or mid-length lumbar or thoracolumbar constructs, S2AI might be considered superior to S2A and I instrumentation due to showing lower incidences of caudal SL and SIJ pain.