Literature DB >> 17653775

Analysis and simulation of progressive adolescent scoliosis by biomechanical growth modulation.

Ian A F Stokes1.   

Abstract

Scoliosis is thought to progress during growth because spinal deformity produces asymmetrical spinal loading, generating asymmetrical growth, etc. in a 'vicious cycle.' The aim of this study was to test quantitatively whether calculated loading asymmetry of a spine with scoliosis, together with measured bone growth sensitivity to altered compression, can explain the observed rate of scoliosis progression in the coronal plane during adolescent growth. The simulated spinal geometry represented a lumbar scoliosis of different initial magnitudes, averaged and scaled from measurements of 15 patients' radiographs. Level-specific stresses acting on the vertebrae were estimated for each of 11 external loading directions ('efforts') from published values of spinal loading asymmetry. These calculations assumed a physiologically plausible muscle activation strategy. The rate of vertebral growth was obtained from published reports of growth of the spine. The distribution of growth across vertebrae was modulated according to published values of growth sensitivity to stress. Mechanically modulated growth of a spine having an initial 13 degrees Cobb scoliosis at age 11 with the spine subjected to an unweighted combination of eleven loading conditions (different effort direction and magnitude) was predicted to progress during growth. The overall shape of the curve was retained. The averaged final lumbar spinal curve magnitude was 32 degrees Cobb at age 16 years for the lower magnitude of effort (that produced compressive stress averaging 0.48 MPa at the curve apex) and it was 38 degrees Cobb when the higher magnitudes of efforts (that produced compressive stress averaging 0.81 MPa at the apex). An initial curve of 26 degrees progressed to 46 degrees and 56 degrees, respectively. The calculated stresses on growth plates were within the range of those measured by intradiscal pressures in typical daily activities. These analyses predicted that a substantial component of scoliosis progression during growth is biomechanically mediated. The rationale for conservative management of scoliosis during skeletal growth assumes a biomechanical mode of deformity progression (Hueter-Volkmann principle). The present study provides a quantitative basis for this previously qualitative hypothesis. The findings suggest that an important difference between progressive and non-progressive scoliosis might lie in the differing muscle activation strategies adopted by individuals, leading to the possibility of improved prognosis and conservative or less invasive interventions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17653775      PMCID: PMC2078290          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-007-0442-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  30 in total

1.  Electromyography of scoliotic patients treated with a brace.

Authors:  Daniel Odermatt; Pierre A Mathieu; Marie Beauséjour; Hubert Labelle; Carl Eric Aubin
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.494

2.  Muscle activation strategies and symmetry of spinal loading in the lumbar spine with scoliosis.

Authors:  Ian A F Stokes; Mack Gardner-Morse
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Optimization of skeletal configuration: studies of scoliosis correction biomechanics.

Authors:  G T Wynarsky; A B Schultz
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 2.712

4.  Electrochemical measurement of transport into scoliotic intervertebral discs in vivo using nitrous oxide as a tracer.

Authors:  M R Urban; J C Fairbank; P J Etherington; L Loh FRCA; C P Winlove; J P Urban
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Spinal growth.

Authors:  R A Dickson; P Deacon
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1987-11

6.  The load on lumbar disks in different positions of the body.

Authors:  A Nachemson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1966 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Disc and vertebral wedging in patients with progressive scoliosis.

Authors:  I A Stokes; D D Aronsson
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  2001-08

8.  Biomechanical simulations of the spine deformation process in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis from different pathogenesis hypotheses.

Authors:  I Villemure; C E Aubin; J Dansereau; H Labelle
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-01-17       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  The adolescent growth spurt of boys and girls of the Harpenden growth study.

Authors:  J M Tanner; R H Whitehouse; E Marubini; L F Resele
Journal:  Ann Hum Biol       Date:  1976-03       Impact factor: 1.533

10.  Stature and its components in healthy children, sexual dimorphism and age related changes.

Authors:  K S Nicolopoulos; R G Burwell; J K Webb
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  1985-08       Impact factor: 2.610

View more
  40 in total

1.  Does removing the spinal tether in a porcine scoliosis model result in persistent deformity? A pilot study.

Authors:  Ashish Patel; Frank Schwab; Renaud Lafage; Virginie Lafage; Jean Pierre Farcy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Biomechanical modeling of brace treatment of scoliosis: effects of gravitational loads.

Authors:  Julien Clin; Carl-Éric Aubin; Stefan Parent; Hubert Labelle
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2011-02-02       Impact factor: 2.602

3.  Biomechanical comparison of fusionless growth modulation corrective techniques in pediatric scoliosis.

Authors:  Mark Driscoll; Carl-Eric Aubin; Alain Moreau; Stefan Parent
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2011-07-14       Impact factor: 2.602

4.  Mechanobiological bone growth: comparative analysis of two biomechanical modeling approaches.

Authors:  Hui Lin; Carl-Eric Aubin; Stefan Parent; Isabelle Villemure
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2008-12-02       Impact factor: 2.602

5.  The role of spinal concave-convex biases in the progression of idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Mark Driscoll; Carl-Eric Aubin; Alain Moreau; Isabelle Villemure; Stefan Parent
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-01-08       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Defining the learning curve in CT-guided navigated thoracoscopic vertebral body tethering.

Authors:  Smitha Mathew; A Noelle Larson; D Dean Potter; Todd A Milbrandt
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2021-05-18

7.  A new method to include the gravitational forces in a finite element model of the scoliotic spine.

Authors:  Julien Clin; Carl-Éric Aubin; Nadine Lalonde; Stefan Parent; Hubert Labelle
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2011-07-05       Impact factor: 2.602

8.  Eye-hand laterality and right thoracic idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Jean-François Catanzariti; Marc-Alexandre Guyot; Olivier Agnani; Samantha Demaille; Elisabeth Kolanowski; Cécile Donze
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Relatively lower body mass index is associated with an excess of severe truncal asymmetry in healthy adolescents: Do white adipose tissue, leptin, hypothalamus and sympathetic nervous system influence truncal growth asymmetry?

Authors:  Theodoros B Grivas; R Geoffrey Burwell; Constantinos Mihas; Elias S Vasiliadis; Georgios Triantafyllopoulos; Angelos Kaspiris
Journal:  Scoliosis       Date:  2009-06-30

10.  Spinal decompensation in degenerative lumbar scoliosis.

Authors:  A A Benjamin de Vries; Margriet G Mullender; Winand J Pluymakers; René M Castelein; Barend J van Royen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-03-19       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.