Dominika Ignasiak1, Tobias Peteler2, Tamás F Fekete3, Daniel Haschtmann3, Stephen J Ferguson2. 1. Institute for Biomechanics, ETH Zurich, Hönggerbergring 64, HPP-O24, 8093, Zurich, Switzerland. dignasiak@ethz.ch. 2. Institute for Biomechanics, ETH Zurich, Hönggerbergring 64, HPP-O24, 8093, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Proximal junctional kyphosis and failure are frequent complications in adult spinal deformity surgery with long fusion constructs. The aim of this study was to assess the biomechanics of the proximal segment for fusions of various lengths. METHODS: A previously established musculoskeletal model of thoracolumbar spine was used to simulate full-range flexion task for fusions (modeled by introduction of rigid constraints) with lower instrumented vertebrae at L5 or S1 and upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) at any level above, up to T2. Inverse dynamics simulations with force-dependent kinematics were performed for gradually increasing spinal flexion in order to predict global and segmental range of flexion, maximum passive moment, segmental compression and shear forces, which were compared to the uninstrumented case. RESULTS: For long fusions, with the UIV at T11 or higher, the model predicted an increase in segmental flexion (by 33-860%, or 1.6°-4.7°) and passive moment (by 39-1370%, or 13-31 Nm) at the proximal junction-generally increasing with fusion length. While the maximum shear force was 57-239% (135-283 N) higher for the proximal junction at the upper thorax (UIV at T6 or above), the compression forces were reduced by up to 44% (375 N). CONCLUSIONS: The length of the instrumentation has an important effect on the proximal segment biomechanics. Despite the limitations of the current model, musculoskeletal modeling appears to be a promising and versatile method to support planning of spinal instrumentation surgeries in the future. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
PURPOSE: Proximal junctional kyphosis and failure are frequent complications in adult spinal deformity surgery with long fusion constructs. The aim of this study was to assess the biomechanics of the proximal segment for fusions of various lengths. METHODS: A previously established musculoskeletal model of thoracolumbar spine was used to simulate full-range flexion task for fusions (modeled by introduction of rigid constraints) with lower instrumented vertebrae at L5 or S1 and upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) at any level above, up to T2. Inverse dynamics simulations with force-dependent kinematics were performed for gradually increasing spinal flexion in order to predict global and segmental range of flexion, maximum passive moment, segmental compression and shear forces, which were compared to the uninstrumented case. RESULTS: For long fusions, with the UIV at T11 or higher, the model predicted an increase in segmental flexion (by 33-860%, or 1.6°-4.7°) and passive moment (by 39-1370%, or 13-31 Nm) at the proximal junction-generally increasing with fusion length. While the maximum shear force was 57-239% (135-283 N) higher for the proximal junction at the upper thorax (UIV at T6 or above), the compression forces were reduced by up to 44% (375 N). CONCLUSIONS: The length of the instrumentation has an important effect on the proximal segment biomechanics. Despite the limitations of the current model, musculoskeletal modeling appears to be a promising and versatile method to support planning of spinal instrumentation surgeries in the future. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Authors: Fred H Nicholls; Junseok Bae; Alexander A Theologis; Murat S Eksi; Christopher P Ames; Sigurd H Berven; Shane Burch; Bobby K Tay; Vedat Deviren Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Justin K Scheer; Joseph A Osorio; Justin S Smith; Frank Schwab; Virginie Lafage; Robert A Hart; Shay Bess; Breton Line; Bassel G Diebo; Themistocles S Protopsaltis; Amit Jain; Tamir Ailon; Douglas C Burton; Christopher I Shaffrey; Eric Klineberg; Christopher P Ames Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Tobias Lange; Werner Schmoelz; Georg Gosheger; Martin Eichinger; Christian H Heinrichs; Albert Schulze Boevingloh; Tobias L Schulte Journal: Spine J Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Nathan J Lee; Zeeshan M Sardar; Venkat Boddapati; Justin Mathew; Meghan Cerpa; Eric Leung; Joseph Lombardi; Lawrence G Lenke; Ronald A Lehman Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2020-10-08