Biomechanical assessment of the stabilization capacity of monolithic spinal rods with different flexural stiffness and anchoring arrangement
Abstract Background Spinal disorders can be treated by several means including fusion surgery. Rigid posterior instrumentations are used to obtain the stability needed for fusion. However, the abrupt stiffness variation between the stabilized and intact segments leads to proximal junctional kyphosis...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical biomechanics (Bristol) 2015-12, Vol.30 (10), p.1026-1035 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1035 |
---|---|
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | 1026 |
container_title | Clinical biomechanics (Bristol) |
container_volume | 30 |
creator | Facchinello, Yann Brailovski, Vladimir Petit, Yvan Brummund, Martin Tremblay, Jaëlle Mac-Thiong, Jean-Marc |
description | Abstract Background Spinal disorders can be treated by several means including fusion surgery. Rigid posterior instrumentations are used to obtain the stability needed for fusion. However, the abrupt stiffness variation between the stabilized and intact segments leads to proximal junctional kyphosis. The concept of spinal rods with variable flexural stiffness is proposed to create a more gradual transition at the end of the instrumentation. Method Biomechanical tests were conducted on porcine spine segments (L1–L6) to assess the stabilization capacity of spinal rods with different flexural stiffness. Dual-rod fusion constructs containing three kinds of rods (Ti, Ti–Ni superelastic, and Ti–Ni half stiff-half superelastic) were implanted using two anchor arrangements: pedicle screws at all levels or pedicle screws at all levels except for upper instrumented vertebra in which case pedicle screws were replaced with transverse process hooks. Specimens were loaded in forward flexion, extension, and lateral bending before and after implantation of the fusion constructs. The effects of different rods on specimen stiffness, vertebra mobility, intradiscal pressures, and anchor forces were evaluated. Finding The differences in rod properties had a moderate impact on the biomechanics of the instrumented spine when only pedicle screws were used. However, this effect was amplified when transverse process hooks were used as proximal anchors. Interpretation Combining transverse hooks and softer (Ti–Ni superelastic and Ti–Ni half stiff-half superelastic) rods provided more motion at the upper instrumented level and applied less force on the anchors, potentially improving the load sharing capacity of the instrumentation. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.09.011 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1747313376</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0268003315002521</els_id><sourcerecordid>1747313376</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c502t-ebf4b2eb46b63c31f92d4e21cd37cff7fa6646af9be2e2ae78af458e8f6c503</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNUs2O0zAQthCI7S68AjI3Lgn-SZzkggQVLEgrcVjuluOMty6JXTwuUJ6Bh8ZRF4Q4cbAszXw_mvmGkOec1Zxx9XJf29mH0ccF7K4WjLc1G2rG-QOy4X03VFx0_CHZMKH6ijEpL8gl4p4x1oi2e0wuhGoEV22zIT_fnFVM8NbM1CAC4gIh0-ho3gHFbEY_-x8m-xioNQdjfT6t3SWGOPu885biwYfCTnFC-q2U6OSdg7TKuBm-H1NpYi61UNSpCVN5dheTD3fUpGTCHayeT8gjZ2aEp_f_Fbl99_bT9n118_H6w_b1TWVbJnIFo2tGAWOjRiWt5G4QUwOC20l21rnOGaUaZdwwggBhoOuNa9oeeqeKgLwiL86qhxS_HAGzXjxamGcTIB5R867pJJeyUwU6nKE2RcQETh-SX0w6ac70GoXe67-i0GsUmg26RFG4z-5tjuMC0x_m790XwPYMgDLqVw9Jo_UQLEw-gc16iv6_bF79o7Ii1zA_wwlwH4-pRFOm0ig007frTawnwVvGRCu4_AW8ZbqC</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1747313376</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Biomechanical assessment of the stabilization capacity of monolithic spinal rods with different flexural stiffness and anchoring arrangement</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Facchinello, Yann ; Brailovski, Vladimir ; Petit, Yvan ; Brummund, Martin ; Tremblay, Jaëlle ; Mac-Thiong, Jean-Marc</creator><creatorcontrib>Facchinello, Yann ; Brailovski, Vladimir ; Petit, Yvan ; Brummund, Martin ; Tremblay, Jaëlle ; Mac-Thiong, Jean-Marc</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background Spinal disorders can be treated by several means including fusion surgery. Rigid posterior instrumentations are used to obtain the stability needed for fusion. However, the abrupt stiffness variation between the stabilized and intact segments leads to proximal junctional kyphosis. The concept of spinal rods with variable flexural stiffness is proposed to create a more gradual transition at the end of the instrumentation. Method Biomechanical tests were conducted on porcine spine segments (L1–L6) to assess the stabilization capacity of spinal rods with different flexural stiffness. Dual-rod fusion constructs containing three kinds of rods (Ti, Ti–Ni superelastic, and Ti–Ni half stiff-half superelastic) were implanted using two anchor arrangements: pedicle screws at all levels or pedicle screws at all levels except for upper instrumented vertebra in which case pedicle screws were replaced with transverse process hooks. Specimens were loaded in forward flexion, extension, and lateral bending before and after implantation of the fusion constructs. The effects of different rods on specimen stiffness, vertebra mobility, intradiscal pressures, and anchor forces were evaluated. Finding The differences in rod properties had a moderate impact on the biomechanics of the instrumented spine when only pedicle screws were used. However, this effect was amplified when transverse process hooks were used as proximal anchors. Interpretation Combining transverse hooks and softer (Ti–Ni superelastic and Ti–Ni half stiff-half superelastic) rods provided more motion at the upper instrumented level and applied less force on the anchors, potentially improving the load sharing capacity of the instrumentation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0268-0033</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1271</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.09.011</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26421654</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Animals ; Biomechanical assessment ; Biomechanical Phenomena - physiology ; Disease Models, Animal ; Elastic Modulus ; Lumbar Vertebrae - physiopathology ; Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery ; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation ; Prostheses and Implants ; Range of Motion, Articular ; Rod with variable flexural stiffness ; Spinal Diseases - surgery ; Spinal fusion ; Spinal Fusion - instrumentation ; Spinal Fusion - methods ; Spinal rod ; Swine ; Transverse process hook</subject><ispartof>Clinical biomechanics (Bristol), 2015-12, Vol.30 (10), p.1026-1035</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2015 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c502t-ebf4b2eb46b63c31f92d4e21cd37cff7fa6646af9be2e2ae78af458e8f6c503</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c502t-ebf4b2eb46b63c31f92d4e21cd37cff7fa6646af9be2e2ae78af458e8f6c503</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.09.011$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26421654$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Facchinello, Yann</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brailovski, Vladimir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Petit, Yvan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brummund, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tremblay, Jaëlle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mac-Thiong, Jean-Marc</creatorcontrib><title>Biomechanical assessment of the stabilization capacity of monolithic spinal rods with different flexural stiffness and anchoring arrangement</title><title>Clinical biomechanics (Bristol)</title><addtitle>Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)</addtitle><description>Abstract Background Spinal disorders can be treated by several means including fusion surgery. Rigid posterior instrumentations are used to obtain the stability needed for fusion. However, the abrupt stiffness variation between the stabilized and intact segments leads to proximal junctional kyphosis. The concept of spinal rods with variable flexural stiffness is proposed to create a more gradual transition at the end of the instrumentation. Method Biomechanical tests were conducted on porcine spine segments (L1–L6) to assess the stabilization capacity of spinal rods with different flexural stiffness. Dual-rod fusion constructs containing three kinds of rods (Ti, Ti–Ni superelastic, and Ti–Ni half stiff-half superelastic) were implanted using two anchor arrangements: pedicle screws at all levels or pedicle screws at all levels except for upper instrumented vertebra in which case pedicle screws were replaced with transverse process hooks. Specimens were loaded in forward flexion, extension, and lateral bending before and after implantation of the fusion constructs. The effects of different rods on specimen stiffness, vertebra mobility, intradiscal pressures, and anchor forces were evaluated. Finding The differences in rod properties had a moderate impact on the biomechanics of the instrumented spine when only pedicle screws were used. However, this effect was amplified when transverse process hooks were used as proximal anchors. Interpretation Combining transverse hooks and softer (Ti–Ni superelastic and Ti–Ni half stiff-half superelastic) rods provided more motion at the upper instrumented level and applied less force on the anchors, potentially improving the load sharing capacity of the instrumentation.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biomechanical assessment</subject><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena - physiology</subject><subject>Disease Models, Animal</subject><subject>Elastic Modulus</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - physiopathology</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</subject><subject>Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation</subject><subject>Prostheses and Implants</subject><subject>Range of Motion, Articular</subject><subject>Rod with variable flexural stiffness</subject><subject>Spinal Diseases - surgery</subject><subject>Spinal fusion</subject><subject>Spinal Fusion - instrumentation</subject><subject>Spinal Fusion - methods</subject><subject>Spinal rod</subject><subject>Swine</subject><subject>Transverse process hook</subject><issn>0268-0033</issn><issn>1879-1271</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNUs2O0zAQthCI7S68AjI3Lgn-SZzkggQVLEgrcVjuluOMty6JXTwuUJ6Bh8ZRF4Q4cbAszXw_mvmGkOec1Zxx9XJf29mH0ccF7K4WjLc1G2rG-QOy4X03VFx0_CHZMKH6ijEpL8gl4p4x1oi2e0wuhGoEV22zIT_fnFVM8NbM1CAC4gIh0-ho3gHFbEY_-x8m-xioNQdjfT6t3SWGOPu885biwYfCTnFC-q2U6OSdg7TKuBm-H1NpYi61UNSpCVN5dheTD3fUpGTCHayeT8gjZ2aEp_f_Fbl99_bT9n118_H6w_b1TWVbJnIFo2tGAWOjRiWt5G4QUwOC20l21rnOGaUaZdwwggBhoOuNa9oeeqeKgLwiL86qhxS_HAGzXjxamGcTIB5R867pJJeyUwU6nKE2RcQETh-SX0w6ac70GoXe67-i0GsUmg26RFG4z-5tjuMC0x_m790XwPYMgDLqVw9Jo_UQLEw-gc16iv6_bF79o7Ii1zA_wwlwH4-pRFOm0ig007frTawnwVvGRCu4_AW8ZbqC</recordid><startdate>20151201</startdate><enddate>20151201</enddate><creator>Facchinello, Yann</creator><creator>Brailovski, Vladimir</creator><creator>Petit, Yvan</creator><creator>Brummund, Martin</creator><creator>Tremblay, Jaëlle</creator><creator>Mac-Thiong, Jean-Marc</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151201</creationdate><title>Biomechanical assessment of the stabilization capacity of monolithic spinal rods with different flexural stiffness and anchoring arrangement</title><author>Facchinello, Yann ; Brailovski, Vladimir ; Petit, Yvan ; Brummund, Martin ; Tremblay, Jaëlle ; Mac-Thiong, Jean-Marc</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c502t-ebf4b2eb46b63c31f92d4e21cd37cff7fa6646af9be2e2ae78af458e8f6c503</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biomechanical assessment</topic><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena - physiology</topic><topic>Disease Models, Animal</topic><topic>Elastic Modulus</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - physiopathology</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</topic><topic>Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation</topic><topic>Prostheses and Implants</topic><topic>Range of Motion, Articular</topic><topic>Rod with variable flexural stiffness</topic><topic>Spinal Diseases - surgery</topic><topic>Spinal fusion</topic><topic>Spinal Fusion - instrumentation</topic><topic>Spinal Fusion - methods</topic><topic>Spinal rod</topic><topic>Swine</topic><topic>Transverse process hook</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Facchinello, Yann</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brailovski, Vladimir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Petit, Yvan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brummund, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tremblay, Jaëlle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mac-Thiong, Jean-Marc</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical biomechanics (Bristol)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Facchinello, Yann</au><au>Brailovski, Vladimir</au><au>Petit, Yvan</au><au>Brummund, Martin</au><au>Tremblay, Jaëlle</au><au>Mac-Thiong, Jean-Marc</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Biomechanical assessment of the stabilization capacity of monolithic spinal rods with different flexural stiffness and anchoring arrangement</atitle><jtitle>Clinical biomechanics (Bristol)</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)</addtitle><date>2015-12-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1026</spage><epage>1035</epage><pages>1026-1035</pages><issn>0268-0033</issn><eissn>1879-1271</eissn><abstract>Abstract Background Spinal disorders can be treated by several means including fusion surgery. Rigid posterior instrumentations are used to obtain the stability needed for fusion. However, the abrupt stiffness variation between the stabilized and intact segments leads to proximal junctional kyphosis. The concept of spinal rods with variable flexural stiffness is proposed to create a more gradual transition at the end of the instrumentation. Method Biomechanical tests were conducted on porcine spine segments (L1–L6) to assess the stabilization capacity of spinal rods with different flexural stiffness. Dual-rod fusion constructs containing three kinds of rods (Ti, Ti–Ni superelastic, and Ti–Ni half stiff-half superelastic) were implanted using two anchor arrangements: pedicle screws at all levels or pedicle screws at all levels except for upper instrumented vertebra in which case pedicle screws were replaced with transverse process hooks. Specimens were loaded in forward flexion, extension, and lateral bending before and after implantation of the fusion constructs. The effects of different rods on specimen stiffness, vertebra mobility, intradiscal pressures, and anchor forces were evaluated. Finding The differences in rod properties had a moderate impact on the biomechanics of the instrumented spine when only pedicle screws were used. However, this effect was amplified when transverse process hooks were used as proximal anchors. Interpretation Combining transverse hooks and softer (Ti–Ni superelastic and Ti–Ni half stiff-half superelastic) rods provided more motion at the upper instrumented level and applied less force on the anchors, potentially improving the load sharing capacity of the instrumentation.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>26421654</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.09.011</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0268-0033 |
ispartof | Clinical biomechanics (Bristol), 2015-12, Vol.30 (10), p.1026-1035 |
issn | 0268-0033 1879-1271 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1747313376 |
source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
subjects | Animals Biomechanical assessment Biomechanical Phenomena - physiology Disease Models, Animal Elastic Modulus Lumbar Vertebrae - physiopathology Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Prostheses and Implants Range of Motion, Articular Rod with variable flexural stiffness Spinal Diseases - surgery Spinal fusion Spinal Fusion - instrumentation Spinal Fusion - methods Spinal rod Swine Transverse process hook |
title | Biomechanical assessment of the stabilization capacity of monolithic spinal rods with different flexural stiffness and anchoring arrangement |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T13%3A28%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Biomechanical%20assessment%20of%20the%20stabilization%20capacity%20of%20monolithic%20spinal%20rods%20with%20different%20flexural%20stiffness%20and%20anchoring%20arrangement&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20biomechanics%20(Bristol)&rft.au=Facchinello,%20Yann&rft.date=2015-12-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1026&rft.epage=1035&rft.pages=1026-1035&rft.issn=0268-0033&rft.eissn=1879-1271&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.09.011&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1747313376%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1747313376&rft_id=info:pmid/26421654&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0268003315002521&rfr_iscdi=true |