Literature DB >> 28373080

Is a gradual reduction of stiffness on top of posterior instrumentation possible with a suitable proximal implant? A biomechanical study.

Tobias Lange1, Werner Schmoelz2, Georg Gosheger3, Martin Eichinger2, Christian H Heinrichs2, Albert Schulze Boevingloh3, Tobias L Schulte4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) is a challenging complication after rigid posterior instrumentation (RI) of the spine. Several risk factors have been described in literature so far, including the rigidity of the cranial aspect of the implant.
PURPOSE: The aim of this biomechanical study was to compare different proximal implants designed to gradually reduce the stiffness between the instrumented and non-instrumented spine. STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: This is a biomechanical study.
METHODS: Eight calf lumbar spines (L2-L6) underwent RI with a titanium pedicle screw rod construct at L4-L6. The proximal transition segment (L3-L4) was instrumented stepwise with different supplementary implants-spinal bands (SB), cerclage wires (CW), hybrid rods (HR), hinged pedicle screws (HPS), or lamina hooks (LH)-and compared with an all-pedicle screw construct (APS). The flexibility of each segment (L2-L6) was tested with pure moments of ±10.0 Nm in the native state and for each implant at L3-L4, and the segmental range of motion (ROM) was evaluated.
RESULTS: On flexion and extension, the native uninstrumented L3-L4 segment showed a mean ROM of 7.3°. The CW reduced the mean ROM to 42.5%, SB to 41.1%, HR to 13.7%, HPS to 12.3%, LH to 6.8%, and APS to 12.3%. On lateral bending, the native segment L3-L4 showed a mean ROM of 15°. The CW reduced the mean ROM to 58.0%, SB to 78.0%, HR to 6.7%, HPS to 6.7%, LH to 10.0%, and APS to 3.3%. On axial rotation, the uninstrumented L3-L4 segment showed a mean ROM of 2.7°. The CW reduced the mean ROM to 55.6%, SB to 77.8%, HR to 55.6%, HPS to 55.6%, LH to 29.6%, and APS to 37.0%.
CONCLUSIONS: Using CW or SB at the proximal transition segment of a long RI reduced rigidity by about 60% in relation to flexion and extension in that segment, whereas the other implants tested had a high degree of rigidity comparable with APS. Clinical randomized controlled trials are needed to elucidate whether this strategy might be effective for preventing PJK.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomechanics; Dynamic instrumentation; Posterior instrumentation; Proximal junctional kyphosis; Spine deformity; Stiffness

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28373080     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.03.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  10 in total

1.  The influence of spinal fusion length on proximal junction biomechanics: a parametric computational study.

Authors:  Dominika Ignasiak; Tobias Peteler; Tamás F Fekete; Daniel Haschtmann; Stephen J Ferguson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Biomechanical investigation of lumbar hybrid stabilization in two-level posterior instrumentation.

Authors:  Aldemar Andres Hegewald; Sebastian Hartmann; Alexander Keiler; Kai Michael Scheufler; Claudius Thomé; Werner Schmoelz
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Proximal junctional failure after surgical instrumentation in adult spinal deformity: biomechanical assessment of proximal instrumentation stiffness.

Authors:  Maeva Lopez Poncelas; Luigi La Barbera; Jeremy Rawlinson; Dennis Crandall; Carl-Eric Aubin
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2022-09-09

4.  Posterior Ligamentous Reinforcement of the Upper Instrumented Vertebrae +1 Does Not Decrease Proximal Junctional Kyphosis in Adult Spinal Deformity.

Authors:  Sravisht Iyer; Francis Lovecchio; Jonathan Charles Elysée; Renaud Lafage; Michael Steinhaus; Frank J Schwab; Virginie Lafage; Han Jo Kim
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2019-08-15

5.  Soft Landing technique as a possible prevention strategy for proximal junctional failure following adult spinal deformity surgery.

Authors:  Alejandro Cazzulino; Rikesh Gandhi; Thaddeus Woodard; Nissim Ackshota; M Burhan Janjua; Vincent Arlet; Comron Saifi
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-03

6.  Effects of multilevel posterior ligament dissection after spinal instrumentation on adjacent segment biomechanics as a potential risk factor for proximal junctional kyphosis: a biomechanical study.

Authors:  Tobias Lange; Tobias L Schulte; Georg Gosheger; Albert Schulze Boevingloh; Raul Mayr; Werner Schmoelz
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-02-14       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Local osteo-enhancement of osteoporotic vertebra with a triphasic bone implant material increases strength-a biomechanical study.

Authors:  Matthias Trost; Werner Schmoelz; Doris Wimmer; Romed Hörmann; Sönke Frey; Tobias Ludger Schulte
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-02-27       Impact factor: 3.067

8.  A predictive scoring system for proximal junctional kyphosis after posterior internal fixation in elderly patients with chronic osteoporotic vertebral fracture: A single-center diagnostic study.

Authors:  Xing Du; Guanyin Jiang; Yong Zhu; Wei Luo; Yunsheng Ou
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 6.055

9.  Choice of Rods in Surgical Treatment of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: What Are the Clinical Implications of Biomechanical Properties? - A Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Søren Ohrt-Nissen; Benny Dahl; Martin Gehrchen
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2018-06-19

10.  Conditions for Achieving Postoperative Pelvic Incidence-Lumbar Lordosis < 10° in Circumferential Minimally Invasive Surgery for Adult Spinal Deformity.

Authors:  Masayuki Ishihara; Shinichirou Taniguchi; Takashi Adachi; Yoichi Tani; Masaaki Paku; Muneharu Ando; Takanori Saito
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-03-13       Impact factor: 4.241

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.