Research Article

Comparison of Posterior 2 Rod Instrumentation with 3 Rod Instrumentation in Corrective Spine Fusion Procedures and Risk for Mechanical Failure

Volume: 28 Number: 2 August 21, 2026

Comparison of Posterior 2 Rod Instrumentation with 3 Rod Instrumentation in Corrective Spine Fusion Procedures and Risk for Mechanical Failure

Abstract

Aim: To compare clinical outcomes, radiographic parameters, and mechanical complications between 2-rod and 3-rod posterior instrumentation systems in patients undergoing long-segment fusion for degenerative spinal disorders.

Material and Methods: This retrospective study included 66 patients who underwent posterior-only corrective spinal fusion for degenerative spinal disorders. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Radiographic parameters including Cobb angle, lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and sacral slope were evaluated preoperatively, in the early postoperative period, at 1 year, and at final follow-up. Mechanical complications, including mechanical failure associated with pseudarthrosis requiring revision surgery and proximal junctional kyphosis, were recorded.

Results: A total of 66 patients were included, including 34 patients in the 2-rod group and 32 patients in the 3-rod group. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in radiographic parameters and patient-reported outcomes during follow-up. Mechanical failure associated with pseudarthrosis requiring revision surgery occurred in four patients (11.7%) in the 2-rod group and in none of the patients in the 3-rod group. Proximal junctional kyphosis developed in 14.7% and 15.6% of patients, respectively. Repeated-measures analysis demonstrated significant improvements over time in VAS and ODI scores in both groups, without significant differences between groups.

Conclusion: Both 2-rod and 3-rod posterior instrumentation systems were associated with significant improvements in clinical and radiographic outcomes. Although mechanical failure was more frequently observed in the 2-rod group, no corresponding differences were observed in patient-reported outcomes. Given the retrospective, non-randomized design, these findings should be interpreted with caution and confirmed in larger prospective studies.

Keywords

Ethical Statement

This study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of [Şişli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital/Health Science University] (Approval No: 4317, February 27, 2024). All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

References

  1. Verma R, Lafage R, Scheer JK, Smith JS, Passias PG, Hostin R, et al. Improvement in back and leg pain and disability following adult spinal deformity surgery: study of 324 patients with 2-year follow-up and the impact of surgery on patient-reported outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019;44(4):263-9. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000002815.
  2. Ames CP, Smith JS, Scheer JK, Shaffrey CI, Lafage V, Deviren V, et al. A standardized nomenclature for cervical spine soft-tissue release and osteotomy for deformity correction: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(3):269-78. doi:10.3171/2013.5.SPINE121067.
  3. Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Shaffrey CI, Fehlings MG, Dahl B, Ames CP, et al. Predictors of health-related quality-of-life after complex adult spinal deformity surgery: a Scoli-RISK-1 secondary analysis. Spine Deform. 2017;5(2):139-44. doi:10.1016/j.jspd.2016.11.001.
  4. Schwab F, Ungar B, Blondel B, Buchowski J, Coe J, Deinlein D, et al. Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: a validation study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(12):1077-82. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823e15e2.
  5. Yilgor C, Sogunmez N, Boissiere L, Yavuz Y, Obeid I, Kleinstück F, et al. Global alignment and proportion (GAP) score. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(19):1661-72. doi:10.2106/JBJS.16.01594.
  6. Kim HJ, Yang JH, Chang DG, Suk SI, Suh SW, Song KS, et al. Adult spinal deformity: current concepts and decision-making strategies for management. Asian Spine J. 2020;14(6):886-97. doi:10.31616/asj.2020.0568.
  7. Dinizo M, Dolgalev I, Passias PG, Errico TJ, Raman T. Complications after adult spinal deformity surgeries: all are not created equal. Int J Spine Surg. 2021;15(1):137-43. doi:10.14444/8018.
  8. Passias PG, Dave P, Smith JS, Lafage R, Onafowokan OO, Tretiakov P, et al. Cause and effect of revisions in adult spinal deformity surgery: a multicenter study on outcomes based on etiology. Spine J. 2025;25(6):1229-35. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2024.12.023.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Orthopaedics

Journal Section

Research Article

Publication Date

August 21, 2026

Submission Date

February 1, 2026

Acceptance Date

July 22, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 28 Number: 2

APA
Altuntaş, Y., Tüter, İ., Cam, N., Talmaç, M. A., & Özdemir, H. M. (2026). Comparison of Posterior 2 Rod Instrumentation with 3 Rod Instrumentation in Corrective Spine Fusion Procedures and Risk for Mechanical Failure. Duzce Medical Journal, 28(2), 157-165. https://doi.org/10.18678/dtfd.1878895
AMA
1.Altuntaş Y, Tüter İ, Cam N, Talmaç MA, Özdemir HM. Comparison of Posterior 2 Rod Instrumentation with 3 Rod Instrumentation in Corrective Spine Fusion Procedures and Risk for Mechanical Failure. Duzce Med J. 2026;28(2):157-165. doi:10.18678/dtfd.1878895
Chicago
Altuntaş, Yusuf, İsmail Tüter, Necmi Cam, Mehmet Ali Talmaç, and Haci Mustafa Özdemir. 2026. “Comparison of Posterior 2 Rod Instrumentation With 3 Rod Instrumentation in Corrective Spine Fusion Procedures and Risk for Mechanical Failure”. Duzce Medical Journal 28 (2): 157-65. https://doi.org/10.18678/dtfd.1878895.
EndNote
Altuntaş Y, Tüter İ, Cam N, Talmaç MA, Özdemir HM (August 1, 2026) Comparison of Posterior 2 Rod Instrumentation with 3 Rod Instrumentation in Corrective Spine Fusion Procedures and Risk for Mechanical Failure. Duzce Medical Journal 28 2 157–165.
IEEE
[1]Y. Altuntaş, İ. Tüter, N. Cam, M. A. Talmaç, and H. M. Özdemir, “Comparison of Posterior 2 Rod Instrumentation with 3 Rod Instrumentation in Corrective Spine Fusion Procedures and Risk for Mechanical Failure”, Duzce Med J, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 157–165, Aug. 2026, doi: 10.18678/dtfd.1878895.
ISNAD
Altuntaş, Yusuf - Tüter, İsmail - Cam, Necmi - Talmaç, Mehmet Ali - Özdemir, Haci Mustafa. “Comparison of Posterior 2 Rod Instrumentation With 3 Rod Instrumentation in Corrective Spine Fusion Procedures and Risk for Mechanical Failure”. Duzce Medical Journal 28/2 (August 1, 2026): 157-165. https://doi.org/10.18678/dtfd.1878895.
JAMA
1.Altuntaş Y, Tüter İ, Cam N, Talmaç MA, Özdemir HM. Comparison of Posterior 2 Rod Instrumentation with 3 Rod Instrumentation in Corrective Spine Fusion Procedures and Risk for Mechanical Failure. Duzce Med J. 2026;28:157–165.
MLA
Altuntaş, Yusuf, et al. “Comparison of Posterior 2 Rod Instrumentation With 3 Rod Instrumentation in Corrective Spine Fusion Procedures and Risk for Mechanical Failure”. Duzce Medical Journal, vol. 28, no. 2, Aug. 2026, pp. 157-65, doi:10.18678/dtfd.1878895.
Vancouver
1.Yusuf Altuntaş, İsmail Tüter, Necmi Cam, Mehmet Ali Talmaç, Haci Mustafa Özdemir. Comparison of Posterior 2 Rod Instrumentation with 3 Rod Instrumentation in Corrective Spine Fusion Procedures and Risk for Mechanical Failure. Duzce Med J. 2026 Aug. 1;28(2):157-65. doi:10.18678/dtfd.1878895