Literature DB >> 28456854

Anterior support reduces the stresses on the posterior instrumentation after pedicle subtraction osteotomy: a finite-element study.

Andrea Luca1, Claudia Ottardi2, Alessio Lovi3, Marco Brayda-Bruno3, Tomaso Villa2,4, Fabio Galbusera4.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: The investigation was based on finite-element simulations.
OBJECTIVE: Pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) is an effective but technical demanding surgical technique, associated with a high risk of rod failure. The present study aims at investigating the role of the anterior support in combination with PSO, with a numerical comparative analysis.
METHODS: An osteotomy was simulated at the L3 level of a lumbosacral spine. An implantation of various combinations of devices for the anterior (1 or 2 cages of different material) and posterior stabilization (1 or 2 rods) was then performed. ROM, loads, and stresses acting on the rods were calculated.
RESULTS: A 4-8% reduction of the ROM was obtained introducing one or two cages in the instrumented model. However, the anterior support had only a minor influence on the ROM. The load on the posterior instrumentation decreased up to 8% using one cage and about 15% with two anterior devices. A 20-30% reduction of the stresses on the rods was calculated inserting one cage and up to 50% using two cages. Following the introduction of the anterior support, the greatest stress reduction was observed in the model having two cages and spinal fixators with two rods.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of cages is crucial to ensure anterior support and decrease loads and stresses on the posterior instrumentation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cages; Finite elements; Lumbar spine; Osteotomy; Pedicle subtraction osteotomy; Rods; Spinal fixators

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28456854     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-017-5084-9

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


  9 in total

1.  Instrumentation failure following pedicle subtraction osteotomy: the role of rod material, diameter, and multi-rod constructs.

Authors:  Andrea Luca; Claudia Ottardi; Maurizio Sasso; Liliana Prosdocimo; Luigi La Barbera; Marco Brayda-Bruno; Fabio Galbusera; Tomaso Villa
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Results of revision surgery after pedicle subtraction osteotomy for fixed sagittal imbalance with pseudarthrosis at the prior osteotomy site or elsewhere: minimum 5 years post-revision.

Authors:  Yong-Chan Kim; Lawrence G Lenke; Seung-Jae Hyun; Jae-Hoo Lee; Linda A Koester; Kathy M Blanke
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2014-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 3.  Revision surgery after PSO failure with rod breakage: a comparison of different techniques.

Authors:  A Luca; A Lovi; F Galbusera; M Brayda-Bruno
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-09-20       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Instability and instrumentation failures after a PSO: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Sebastien Charosky; Pierre Moreno; Philippe Maxy
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-04-19       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Finite element analysis of the lumbar destabilization following pedicle subtraction osteotomy.

Authors:  Claudia Ottardi; Fabio Galbusera; Andrea Luca; Liliana Prosdocimo; Maurizio Sasso; Marco Brayda-Bruno; Tomaso Villa
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 2.242

6.  Pedicle subtraction osteotomies (PSO) in the lumbar spine for sagittal deformities.

Authors:  Pedro Berjano; Max Aebi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Pedicle subtraction osteotomy for the treatment of fixed sagittal imbalance.

Authors:  Keith H Bridwell; Stephen J Lewis; Lawrence G Lenke; Christy Baldus; Kathy Blanke
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 8.  Osteotomies/spinal column resections in adult deformity.

Authors:  Meric Enercan; Cagatay Ozturk; Sinan Kahraman; Mercan Sarıer; Azmi Hamzaoglu; Ahmet Alanay
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-05-11       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Construct Rigidity after Fatigue Loading in Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy with or without Adjacent Interbody Structural Cages.

Authors:  Vedat Deviren; Jessica A Tang; Justin K Scheer; Jenni M Buckley; Murat Pekmezci; R Trigg McClellan; Christopher P Ames
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2012-12-06
  9 in total
  11 in total

1.  Sequential correction technique to avoid postoperative global coronal decompensation in rigid adult spinal deformity: a technical note and preliminary results.

Authors:  Hongda Bao; Zhen Liu; Yuancheng Zhang; Xu Sun; Jun Jiang; Bangping Qian; Saihu Mao; Yong Qiu; Zezhang Zhu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-06-25       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Biomechanical in vitro comparison between anterior column realignment and pedicle subtraction osteotomy for severe sagittal imbalance correction.

Authors:  Luigi La Barbera; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Christian Liebsch; Tomaso Villa; Andrea Luca; Fabio Galbusera; Marco Brayda-Bruno
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-08-14       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Supplementary delta-rod configurations provide superior stiffness and reduced rod stress compared to traditional multiple-rod configurations after pedicle subtraction osteotomy: a finite element study.

Authors:  Pedro Berjano; Ming Xu; Marco Damilano; Thomas Scholl; Claudio Lamartina; Michael Jekir; Fabio Galbusera
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-05-25       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Kinematic efficacy of supplemental anterior lumbar interbody fusion at lumbosacral levels in thoracolumbosacral deformity correction with and without pedicle subtraction osteotomy at L3: an in vitro cadaveric study.

Authors:  Benny T Dahl; Jonathan A Harris; Manasa Gudipally; Mark Moldavsky; Saif Khalil; Brandon S Bucklen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Biomechanical comparison of multi-rod constructs by satellite rod configurations (in-line vs. lateral) and screw types (monoaxial vs. polyaxial) spanning a lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO): is there an optimal configuration?

Authors:  Niloufar Shekouhi; Ardalan S Vosoughi; Joseph M Zavatsky; Vijay K Goel; Alekos A Theologis
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-08-06       Impact factor: 2.721

Review 6.  Influence of double rods and interbody cages on range of motion and rod stress after spinopelvic instrumentation: a finite element study.

Authors:  Aleksander Leszczynski; Frank Meyer; Yann-Philippe Charles; Caroline Deck; Nicolas Bourdet; Rémy Willinger
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-04-23       Impact factor: 2.721

Review 7.  [Pseudarthrosis and construct failure after lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy : Influence of biomechanics, surgical technique, biology and avoidance strategies].

Authors:  C Birkenmaier
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 1.087

8.  Biomechanical advantages of supplemental accessory and satellite rods with and without interbody cages implantation for the stabilization of pedicle subtraction osteotomy.

Authors:  Luigi La Barbera; Marco Brayda-Bruno; Christian Liebsch; Tomaso Villa; Andrea Luca; Fabio Galbusera; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy.

Authors:  Munish C Gupta; Sachin Gupta; Michael P Kelly; Keith H Bridwell
Journal:  JBJS Essent Surg Tech       Date:  2020-02-03

10.  Load-sharing biomechanics of lumbar fixation and fusion with pedicle subtraction osteotomy.

Authors:  Luigi La Barbera; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Maria Luisa Ruspi; Marco Palanca; Christian Liebsch; Andrea Luca; Marco Brayda-Bruno; Fabio Galbusera; Luca Cristofolini
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-11       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.