Literature DB >> 15928549

Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty affect vertebral motion segment stiffness and stress distributions: a microstructural finite-element study.

Tony S Keller1, Victor Kosmopoulos, Isador H Lieberman.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: The mechanical behavior of a thoracic motion segment following cement augmentation was studied using the finite-element method.
OBJECTIVE: To examine effects of cement augmentation on motion segment stiffness and load transfer. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty procedures are meant to stiffen and strengthen the vertebral body, but the optimal cement volume and placement to achieve these goals without altering load transfer to adjacent segments are unknown.
METHODS: A microstructural finite-element model of a vertebral motion segment was constructed from micro-CT images. Microdamage within the vertebral body trabecular structure was modeled using an elasto-plastic modulus reduction scheme. Three motion segment damage models were created: I = 18% apparent modulus reduction (least damage), II = 45%, and III = 85% (most damage); and several one- and two-segment polymethylmethacrylate cement repair strategies (partial fill kyphoplasty, replacement of bone and marrow; and both partial fill and complete fill vertebroplasty, replacement of marrow only) were studied. Average disc and bone stresses and motion segment apparent compressive stiffness were compared with baseline (undamaged and untreated) simulation results.
RESULTS: In terms of maximizing stiffness and minimizing stress alterations in the adjacent vertebral body and increasing motion segment apparent stiffness, we found that, other than complete fill, the most effective single-segment cement repair strategy was vertebroplasty on the periphery of the superior segment overlying the disc anulus (<0.1% overall vertebral body bone stress alteration and 83% stiffness increase, respectively, damage Model III). Two-segment vertebroplasty (all repair models) restored motion segment stiffness to baseline levels in all damage models, while single-segment vertebroplasty (all repair models) restored stiffness to baseline levels only in damage Model I. Single- and two-segment kyphoplasty was effective in restoring stiffness to baseline levels for Model I only. Compared with the baseline model, cement augmentation decreased average treated segment bone stresses (up to 66%, complete fill vertebroplasty elasto-plastic modulus reduction Model III), increased average intervertebral disc nucleus stresses (up to 59%, kyphoplasty elasto-plastic modulus reduction Model III), and increased average adjacent segment, endplate region stresses (up to 2.8%, kyphoplasty elasto-plastic modulus reduction Model II). Adjacent (untreated) segment peak bone stresses were increased (up to 45%, kyphoplasty, Model III) in endplate regions underlying the intervertebral disc nucleus.
CONCLUSIONS: The damage-repair simulations indicated that cement augmentation improves motion segment stiffness but substantially alters bone stress distributions in treated and adjacent segments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15928549     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000163882.27413.01

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  15 in total

1.  Simulation of the behaviour of the L1 vertebra for different material properties and loading conditions.

Authors:  Ibrahim Erdem; Eeric Truumees; Marjolein C H van der Meulen
Journal:  Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin       Date:  2011-12-08       Impact factor: 1.763

2.  Results, experience and technical points learnt with use of the SKy Bone Expander kyphoplasty system for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a prospective study of 40 patients with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up.

Authors:  Leon Siang Shen Foo; William Yeo; Stephanie Fook; Chang Ming Guo; John Li Tat Chen; Wai Mun Yue; Seang Beng Tan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-07-21       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  [Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty in patients with osteoporotic fractures: secured knowledge and open questions].

Authors:  K Bohndorf; R Fessl
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 0.635

4.  A probabilistic finite element analysis of the stresses in the augmented vertebral body after vertebroplasty.

Authors:  Antonius Rohlmann; Hadi Nabil Boustani; Georg Bergmann; Thomas Zander
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-04-02       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  Volume matters: a review of procedural details of two randomised controlled vertebroplasty trials of 2009.

Authors:  Bronek Boszczyk
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-08-05       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  [Biomechanical aspects of vertebral augmentation].

Authors:  H-J Wilke
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 1.000

7.  Relationship between New Osteoporotic Vertebral Fracture and Instrumented Lumbar Arthrodesis.

Authors:  Bung-Hak Kim; Dong-Hyuk Choi; Seong-Hun Jeon; Yong-Soo Choi
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2010-11-24

8.  Investigating sacroplasty: technical considerations and finite element analysis of polymethylmethacrylate infusion into cadaveric sacrum.

Authors:  C T Whitlow; S K Yazdani; M L Reedy; S E Kaminsky; J L Berry; P P Morris
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2007 Jun-Jul       Impact factor: 3.825

9.  Early stage disc degeneration does not have an appreciable affect on stiffness and load transfer following vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty.

Authors:  Victor Kosmopoulos; Tony S Keller; Constantin Schizas
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-11-26       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Differences in endplate deformation of the adjacent and augmented vertebra following cement augmentation.

Authors:  Paul A Hulme; S K Boyd; P F Heini; S J Ferguson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-02-26       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.