M E Quick1, C A Grant2, C J Adam2, G N Askin2, R D Labrom2, M J Pearcy2. 1. Paediatric Spine Research Group, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology and Mater Health Services, Brisbane, Australia. Electronic address: quickymark@gmail.com. 2. Paediatric Spine Research Group, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology and Mater Health Services, Brisbane, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of dual growing rods is a fusionless surgical approach to the treatment of early onset scoliosis which aims to harness potential growth and correct spinal deformity. The purpose of this study was to compare the in-vitro biomechanical response of two different dual rod designs under axial rotation loading. METHODS: Six porcine spines were dissected into seven level thoracolumbar multi-segment units. Each specimen was mounted and tested in a biaxial Instron machine, undergoing nondestructive left and right axial rotation to peak moments of 4 Nm at a constant rotation rate of 8 deg. s(-1). A motion tracking system (Optotrak) measured 3D displacements of individual vertebrae. Each spine was tested in an un-instrumented state first and then with appropriately sized semi-constrained and 'rigid' growing rods in alternating sequence. The range of motion, neutral zone size and stiffness were calculated from the moment-rotation curves and intervertebral range of motion was calculated from Optotrak data. FINDINGS: Irrespective of test sequence, rigid rods showed a significant reduction of total rotation across all instrumented levels (with increased stiffness) whilst semi-constrained rods exhibited similar rotational behavior to the un-instrumented spines (P<0.05). An 11.1% and 8.0% increase in stiffness for left and right axial rotation respectively and 14.9% reduction in total range of motion were recorded with dual rigid rods compared with semi-constrained rods. INTERPRETATION: Based on these findings, the Semi-constrained growing rods were shown to not increase axial rotation stiffness compared with un-instrumented spines. This is thought to provide a more physiological environment for the growing spine compared to dual rigid rod constructs.
BACKGROUND: The use of dual growing rods is a fusionless surgical approach to the treatment of early onset scoliosis which aims to harness potential growth and correct spinal deformity. The purpose of this study was to compare the in-vitro biomechanical response of two different dual rod designs under axial rotation loading. METHODS: Six porcine spines were dissected into seven level thoracolumbar multi-segment units. Each specimen was mounted and tested in a biaxial Instron machine, undergoing nondestructive left and right axial rotation to peak moments of 4 Nm at a constant rotation rate of 8 deg. s(-1). A motion tracking system (Optotrak) measured 3D displacements of individual vertebrae. Each spine was tested in an un-instrumented state first and then with appropriately sized semi-constrained and 'rigid' growing rods in alternating sequence. The range of motion, neutral zone size and stiffness were calculated from the moment-rotation curves and intervertebral range of motion was calculated from Optotrak data. FINDINGS: Irrespective of test sequence, rigid rods showed a significant reduction of total rotation across all instrumented levels (with increased stiffness) whilst semi-constrained rods exhibited similar rotational behavior to the un-instrumented spines (P<0.05). An 11.1% and 8.0% increase in stiffness for left and right axial rotation respectively and 14.9% reduction in total range of motion were recorded with dual rigid rods compared with semi-constrained rods. INTERPRETATION: Based on these findings, the Semi-constrained growing rods were shown to not increase axial rotation stiffness compared with un-instrumented spines. This is thought to provide a more physiological environment for the growing spine compared to dual rigid rod constructs.
Authors: Sarah Galvis; Josh Arnold; Erin Mannen; Benjamin Wong; Hadley Sis; Eileen Cadel; John Anderson; Dennis Anderson; Paul Arnold; Elizabeth Friis Journal: Spine Deform Date: 2017-01
Authors: Charles E Mackel; Ajit Jada; Amer F Samdani; James H Stephen; James T Bennett; Ali A Baaj; Steven W Hwang Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2018-08-04 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: Nicholas Vaudreuil; Jingbo Xue; Rahul Ramanathan; Robert Tisherman; Malcolm Dombrowski; Wen-Jun Wang; Kevin Bell Journal: JOR Spine Date: 2018-10-08
Authors: Baoqing Pei; Da Lu; Xueqing Wu; Yangyang Xu; Chenghao Ma; Shuqin Wu Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-12 Impact factor: 3.390