Andrea Luca1, Claudia Ottardi2, Alessio Lovi3, Marco Brayda-Bruno3, Tomaso Villa2,4, Fabio Galbusera4. 1. Department of Spine Surgery III, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy. aluca.md@gmail.com. 2. Laboratory of Biological Structure Mechanics, Department of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering "G. Natta", Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy. 3. Department of Spine Surgery III, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy. 4. IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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