Literature DB >> 17414910

A biomechanical assessment of thoracic spine stapling.

Christian M Puttlitz1, Fujita Masaru, Antonia Barkley, Mohammed Diab, Emre Acaroglu.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: An in vitro immature bovine study of thoracic spine fixation using shape memory alloy for minimally invasive adolescent scoliosis treatment.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to detect differences in thoracic spine range of motion due to the placement of spinal staples manufactured from a common shape memory alloy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Scoliosis surgery attempts to both correct the existing deformity and prevent further curve progression. The gold standard in surgical treatment of scoliosis is posterior instrumentation and fusion using pedicle screws or hooks. Fusionless techniques generally use less invasive procedures than fusion methods. One such technique, anterior stapling of the vertebrae, theoretically enables preservation of growth, motion, and spinal function. However, the degree of stability afforded by this method has not been reported.
METHODS: Eight immature bovine specimens (T4-T9) were used in this study. Nitinol staples were cooled to below the transition temperature and placed on the spine such that they spanned the disc space. The specimen was then heated above the critical temperature and the staple tines engaged the vertebral endplates. A common flexibility protocol was used to determine the ranges of motion (ROM) in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. The intact spine and 4 construct variants (combinations of staple type and placement) were evaluated using this testing protocol. ANOVA statistics with post hoc testing was used to discern statistical differences.
RESULTS: Not all staple variants were able to achieve significant reductions with respect to the intact condition. ROM was significantly restricted in axial rotation and lateral bending with the introduction of staple instrumentation. Further, there seemed to be a mechanical equivalence between a single double-prong staple and 2 single-prong staples. Our data indicate that staple fixation does not result in consistently elevated adjacent segment motion.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results imply that staples are able to significantly restrict motion while not achieving motion reductions that one would achieve with fusion-promoting instrumentation. The choice between double- and single-prong staples remains a matter of preference. Neither staple variant provided a mechanical advantage. The single-prong staple did allow more control in the placement of the staple over the disc space. The addition of an anterior staple significantly reduced the overall flexion-extension ROM.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17414910     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000259073.16006.ed

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


  5 in total

1.  Comparative analysis between shape memory alloy-based correction and traditional correction technique in pedicle screws constructs for treating severe scoliosis.

Authors:  Yan Wang; Guoquan Zheng; Xuesong Zhang; Yonggang Zhang; Songhua Xiao; Zheng Wang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Risk of early complication following anterior vertebral body tethering for idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Abdullah Abdullah; Stefan Parent; Firoz Miyanji; Kevin Smit; Joshua Murphy; David Skaggs; Purnendu Gupta; Michael Vitale; Jean Ouellet; Neil Saran; Robert H Cho; Pediatric Spine Study Group; Ron El-Hawary
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2021-04-09

3.  [Results of treatment of progressive scoliosis with SMA staples].

Authors:  R Stücker
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Growth modulation in the management of growing spine deformities.

Authors:  Ibrahim Akel; Muharrem Yazici
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2008-11-20       Impact factor: 1.548

5.  Temporary use of shape memory spinal rod in the treatment of scoliosis.

Authors:  Yan Wang; Guoquan Zheng; Xuesong Zhang; Yonggang Zhang; Songhua Xiao; Zheng Wang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-07-14       Impact factor: 3.134

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.