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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical biomechanics (Bristol) 2015-12, Vol.30 (10), p.1026-1035
Hauptverfasser: Facchinello, Yann, Brailovski, Vladimir, Petit, Yvan, Brummund, Martin, Tremblay, Jaëlle, Mac-Thiong, Jean-Marc
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