Sebastiaan P J Wijdicks1, Justin V C Lemans1, Gijsbertus J Verkerke2,3, Herke Jan Noordmans4, René M Castelein1, Moyo C Kruyt5. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Biomechanical Engineering, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB, Enschede, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Medical Technology and Clinical Physics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. m.c.kruyt@umcutrecht.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Current treatment of progressive early onset scoliosis involves growth-friendly instrumentation if conservative treatment fails. These implants guide growth by passive sliding or repeated lengthenings. None of these techniques provide dynamic correction after implantation. We developed the spring distraction system (SDS), by using one or multiple compressed springs positioned around a standard sliding rod, to provide active continuous distraction of the spine to stimulate growth and further correction. The purpose of this study was to determine feasibility and proof of concept of the SDS. METHODS: We developed a versatile, dynamic spring distraction system for patients who would benefit from active continuous distraction. This prospective case series evaluates four patients with exceptional and progressive congenital spine deformities. RESULTS: Four patients had a mean age of 6.8 years at surgery with a mean follow-up of 36 months (range 25-45). The mean progressive thoracic lordosis, which was the reason for initiating surgical treatment in two patients, changed from 32° lordosis preoperatively to 1° kyphosis post-operatively. During follow-up, this further improved to 32° thoracic kyphosis. In the two other patients, with cervicothorcacic scoliosis, the main coronal curve improved from 79° pre-operatively to 56° post-operatively and further improved to 42°. The mean T1-S1 spine growth during follow-up for all patients was 1.3 cm/year. There was one reoperation because of skin problems and no device-failures. CONCLUSION: These early results show the feasibility and the proof of concept of spring-based distraction as a dynamic growth-enhancing system with the potential of further correction of the deformity after implantation.
PURPOSE: Current treatment of progressive early onset scoliosis involves growth-friendly instrumentation if conservative treatment fails. These implants guide growth by passive sliding or repeated lengthenings. None of these techniques provide dynamic correction after implantation. We developed the spring distraction system (SDS), by using one or multiple compressed springs positioned around a standard sliding rod, to provide active continuous distraction of the spine to stimulate growth and further correction. The purpose of this study was to determine feasibility and proof of concept of the SDS. METHODS: We developed a versatile, dynamic spring distraction system for patients who would benefit from active continuous distraction. This prospective case series evaluates four patients with exceptional and progressive congenital spine deformities. RESULTS: Four patients had a mean age of 6.8 years at surgery with a mean follow-up of 36 months (range 25-45). The mean progressive thoracic lordosis, which was the reason for initiating surgical treatment in two patients, changed from 32° lordosis preoperatively to 1° kyphosis post-operatively. During follow-up, this further improved to 32° thoracic kyphosis. In the two other patients, with cervicothorcacic scoliosis, the main coronal curve improved from 79° pre-operatively to 56° post-operatively and further improved to 42°. The mean T1-S1 spine growth during follow-up for all patients was 1.3 cm/year. There was one reoperation because of skin problems and no device-failures. CONCLUSION: These early results show the feasibility and the proof of concept of spring-based distraction as a dynamic growth-enhancing system with the potential of further correction of the deformity after implantation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Dynamic growth enhancing correction; Early onset scoliosis; Growing rods; Innovative device; Spring distraction
Authors: Sebastiaan P J Wijdicks; Isabel N Tromp; Muharrem Yazici; Diederik H R Kempen; René M Castelein; Moyo C Kruyt Journal: Spine J Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Behrooz A Akbarnia; David S Marks; Oheneba Boachie-Adjei; Alistair G Thompson; Marc A Asher Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-09-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Shay Bess; Behrooz A Akbarnia; George H Thompson; Paul D Sponseller; Suken A Shah; Hazem El Sebaie; Oheneba Boachie-Adjei; Lawrence I Karlin; Sarah Canale; Connie Poe-Kochert; David L Skaggs Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2010-10-01 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Hiroko Matsumoto; Brendan A Williams; Jacqueline Corona; Jonathan S Comer; Prudence W Fisher; Yuval Neria; Benjamin D Roye; David P Roye; Michael G Vitale Journal: J Pediatr Orthop Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 2.324
Authors: Casper S Tabeling; Justin V C Lemans; Anouk Top; E Pauline Scholten; Hilde W Stempels; Tom P C Schlösser; Keita Ito; René M Castelein; Moyo C Kruyt Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Koen Willemsen; Joëll Magré; Jeroen Mol; Herke Jan Noordmans; Harrie Weinans; Edsko E G Hekman; Moyo C Kruyt Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-03-04