Luigi La Barbera1, A Noelle Larson2, Jeremy Rawlinson3, Carl-Eric Aubin4. 1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Polytechnique Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Sainte-Justine University Hospital Centre, Montréal, Québec, Canada. Electronic address: luigi.la-barbera@polymtl.ca. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Polytechnique Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Medtronic, Spinal Applied Research, Memphis, TN, USA. 4. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Polytechnique Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Sainte-Justine University Hospital Centre, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With modelling and simulation (or in silico) techniques, patient-specific optimization algorithms represent promising tools to support the surgical decision-making process, particularly in 3D correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, where the best intraoperative instrumentation strategy and the correction goals are debated. METHODS: 1080 biomechanical intraoperative simulations of a representative pediatric thoracic curve were run according to a full-factorial design approach. Widely accepted instrumentation configurations (5 screw patterns, 4 upper and 3 lower instrumented vertebrae, 6 rod curvatures and 3 rod stiffnesses) were analyzed, assuming concave rod rotation and en bloc derotation as main correction maneuvers. Results in terms of 3D correction and mobility were rated using an objective function for thoracic scoliosis also including surgeon-dependent correction objectives. An extensive sensitivity analysis on correction objectives was performed. FINDINGS: Multiple optimal strategies were identified, depending on the selected correction objective. They provided significantly better coronal (67% vs. 55%) correction, using comparable instrumented levels (9.9 ± 1.6 vs. 10.7 ± 2.1), screw patterns and significantly higher implant density (1.6 ± 0.3 vs. 1.4 ± 0.2 screws/vertebra) compared to worst ones. Optimal strategies typically included the neutral and the last touching vertebrae in the construct and high stiffness (CoCr, 6 mm) differentially/highly contoured rods. INTERPRETATION: The computerized algorithm determined the best instrumentation parameters to achieve optimal correction for the considered thoracic case. Multiple clinically equivalent strategies may be used, as supported by the variety of considered correction objectives. The current approach could be translated to any scoliotic curves, including surgeon preferences in terms of instrumentation parameters, intraoperative correction maneuvers and correction objectives.
BACKGROUND: With modelling and simulation (or in silico) techniques, patient-specific optimization algorithms represent promising tools to support the surgical decision-making process, particularly in 3D correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, where the best intraoperative instrumentation strategy and the correction goals are debated. METHODS: 1080 biomechanical intraoperative simulations of a representative pediatric thoracic curve were run according to a full-factorial design approach. Widely accepted instrumentation configurations (5 screw patterns, 4 upper and 3 lower instrumented vertebrae, 6 rod curvatures and 3 rod stiffnesses) were analyzed, assuming concave rod rotation and en bloc derotation as main correction maneuvers. Results in terms of 3D correction and mobility were rated using an objective function for thoracic scoliosis also including surgeon-dependent correction objectives. An extensive sensitivity analysis on correction objectives was performed. FINDINGS: Multiple optimal strategies were identified, depending on the selected correction objective. They provided significantly better coronal (67% vs. 55%) correction, using comparable instrumented levels (9.9 ± 1.6 vs. 10.7 ± 2.1), screw patterns and significantly higher implant density (1.6 ± 0.3 vs. 1.4 ± 0.2 screws/vertebra) compared to worst ones. Optimal strategies typically included the neutral and the last touching vertebrae in the construct and high stiffness (CoCr, 6 mm) differentially/highly contoured rods. INTERPRETATION: The computerized algorithm determined the best instrumentation parameters to achieve optimal correction for the considered thoracic case. Multiple clinically equivalent strategies may be used, as supported by the variety of considered correction objectives. The current approach could be translated to any scoliotic curves, including surgeon preferences in terms of instrumentation parameters, intraoperative correction maneuvers and correction objectives.