3D Visualization of Vertebral Growth Plates and Disc: The Effects of Growth Modulation

Abstract After tethered growth or sham surgery, spinal motion segments underwent microtomography to determine physeal and disc 3-dimensional (3D) morphology. Instrumented and contralateral sides of tether and sham surgical groups were compared. Objectives To determine the 3D morphological effects of...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Spine deformity 2013-09, Vol.1 (5), p.313-320
Hauptverfasser: Newton, Peter O., MD, Glaser, Diana A., PhD, Doan, Joshua D., MEng, Farnsworth, Christine L., MS
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 320
container_issue 5
container_start_page 313
container_title Spine deformity
container_volume 1
creator Newton, Peter O., MD
Glaser, Diana A., PhD
Doan, Joshua D., MEng
Farnsworth, Christine L., MS
description Abstract After tethered growth or sham surgery, spinal motion segments underwent microtomography to determine physeal and disc 3-dimensional (3D) morphology. Instrumented and contralateral sides of tether and sham surgical groups were compared. Objectives To determine the 3D morphological effects of growth modulation via anterolateral tethering on vertebral physeal and intervertebral disc morphology in a rapidly growing bovine model. Summary of background data Growth modulation acts through physeal loading. Providing a promising alternative to arthrodesis for scoliosis correction, tethering vertebral growth maintains further growth (open/functioning physes) and motion (disc integrity). Standard physeal and disc evaluation using histology reduces 3D geometries to single planar samples. Methods Five-week-old calves received anterolateral flexible spinal tethers (n = 6) or sham surgeries (n = 6) followed by 6 months of growth. Individual motion segments were imaged by microtomograph (36 μm). Physeal space and disc space thickness maps were generated from surface reconstructions. Normalized thickness differences were compared between instrumented and contralateral sides of tether and sham groups (analysis of variance, p < .05). Physeal closure was estimated and regions of bony bridging were marked closed. Results Tethering caused significant physeal thickness reduction on the instrumented side compared with the contralateral side (7.6% ± 2.0%; p = .0002). This reduction was greater (p = .003) in tethered physes than in the sham, which demonstrated no reduction (0.8% ± 3.7%; p = .6). Small regions of physeal closure were observed in sham and tether groups (medians of 1.4% and 0.1% and maximums of 6.8% and 2.7%, respectively). Tethered discs were 29% thinner than sham, but demonstrated no contralateral to instrumented-side thickness difference (5.2% difference; p = .3). Conclusions Tethering resulted in thinner physes on the tethered side without notable physeal closure. With no side differences in the sham group, tethering apparently applied instrument-sided compressive forces. Tethering also resulted in thinner discs, although they were apparently. Producing consistent histological samples is difficult; misaligned slices may lead to inaccurate conclusions. Evaluating entire physes or discs produces more robust results.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jspd.2013.07.005
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1847881387</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S2212134X13001032</els_id><sourcerecordid>1847881387</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3705-f6f041ca1bdc6ba21ef2dd4c5ebaf19d7d6d0d1e78759cce39100e670e6a6be73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kl1rFDEUhoNYbKn9A15ILr3ZMR8zk6yIIG1thZYK1sW7kElObMbsZJvMKPXXm-muFXrRQEgg73M4eTgIvaKkooS2b_uqzxtbMUJ5RURFSPMMHTBG2YLyRj5_uNff99FRzj0pS8qayuYF2mdiyQSX7QFa8RO88nnSwf_Ro48Djg6vII3QJR3wWYq_xxv8JegRMtaDxSc-m3f4-gbwqXNgxjwDu9hltFO4r_IS7TkdMhztzkP07dPp9fH54uLq7PPxx4uF4YI0C9c6UlOjaWdN22lGwTFra9NApx1dWmFbSywFIUWzNAb4khICrShbtx0IfojebOtuUrydII9qXfqDEPQAccqKylpISbmco2wbNSnmnMCpTfJrne4UJWpWqno1K1WzUkWEKkoL9HpXf-rWYB-QfwJLgG8DuTwNPyCpPk5pKH9-uuz7LQXFzS9fqGw8DAasT8WpstE_jX94hJvgB290-Al3kP93oDJTRH2dR2GeBMoJoYQz_hfS5q07</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1847881387</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>3D Visualization of Vertebral Growth Plates and Disc: The Effects of Growth Modulation</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Newton, Peter O., MD ; Glaser, Diana A., PhD ; Doan, Joshua D., MEng ; Farnsworth, Christine L., MS</creator><creatorcontrib>Newton, Peter O., MD ; Glaser, Diana A., PhD ; Doan, Joshua D., MEng ; Farnsworth, Christine L., MS</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract After tethered growth or sham surgery, spinal motion segments underwent microtomography to determine physeal and disc 3-dimensional (3D) morphology. Instrumented and contralateral sides of tether and sham surgical groups were compared. Objectives To determine the 3D morphological effects of growth modulation via anterolateral tethering on vertebral physeal and intervertebral disc morphology in a rapidly growing bovine model. Summary of background data Growth modulation acts through physeal loading. Providing a promising alternative to arthrodesis for scoliosis correction, tethering vertebral growth maintains further growth (open/functioning physes) and motion (disc integrity). Standard physeal and disc evaluation using histology reduces 3D geometries to single planar samples. Methods Five-week-old calves received anterolateral flexible spinal tethers (n = 6) or sham surgeries (n = 6) followed by 6 months of growth. Individual motion segments were imaged by microtomograph (36 μm). Physeal space and disc space thickness maps were generated from surface reconstructions. Normalized thickness differences were compared between instrumented and contralateral sides of tether and sham groups (analysis of variance, p &lt; .05). Physeal closure was estimated and regions of bony bridging were marked closed. Results Tethering caused significant physeal thickness reduction on the instrumented side compared with the contralateral side (7.6% ± 2.0%; p = .0002). This reduction was greater (p = .003) in tethered physes than in the sham, which demonstrated no reduction (0.8% ± 3.7%; p = .6). Small regions of physeal closure were observed in sham and tether groups (medians of 1.4% and 0.1% and maximums of 6.8% and 2.7%, respectively). Tethered discs were 29% thinner than sham, but demonstrated no contralateral to instrumented-side thickness difference (5.2% difference; p = .3). Conclusions Tethering resulted in thinner physes on the tethered side without notable physeal closure. With no side differences in the sham group, tethering apparently applied instrument-sided compressive forces. Tethering also resulted in thinner discs, although they were apparently. Producing consistent histological samples is difficult; misaligned slices may lead to inaccurate conclusions. Evaluating entire physes or discs produces more robust results.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2212-134X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2212-1358</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jspd.2013.07.005</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27927386</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Growth modulation ; Intervertebral disc ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Orthopedics ; Scoliosis ; Three-dimensional morphology ; Vertebral physis</subject><ispartof>Spine deformity, 2013-09, Vol.1 (5), p.313-320</ispartof><rights>Scoliosis Research Society</rights><rights>2013 Scoliosis Research Society</rights><rights>Scoliosis Research Society 2013</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 Scoliosis Research Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3705-f6f041ca1bdc6ba21ef2dd4c5ebaf19d7d6d0d1e78759cce39100e670e6a6be73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3705-f6f041ca1bdc6ba21ef2dd4c5ebaf19d7d6d0d1e78759cce39100e670e6a6be73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1016/j.jspd.2013.07.005$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1016/j.jspd.2013.07.005$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27927386$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Newton, Peter O., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glaser, Diana A., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doan, Joshua D., MEng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farnsworth, Christine L., MS</creatorcontrib><title>3D Visualization of Vertebral Growth Plates and Disc: The Effects of Growth Modulation</title><title>Spine deformity</title><addtitle>Spine Deform</addtitle><addtitle>Spine Deform</addtitle><description>Abstract After tethered growth or sham surgery, spinal motion segments underwent microtomography to determine physeal and disc 3-dimensional (3D) morphology. Instrumented and contralateral sides of tether and sham surgical groups were compared. Objectives To determine the 3D morphological effects of growth modulation via anterolateral tethering on vertebral physeal and intervertebral disc morphology in a rapidly growing bovine model. Summary of background data Growth modulation acts through physeal loading. Providing a promising alternative to arthrodesis for scoliosis correction, tethering vertebral growth maintains further growth (open/functioning physes) and motion (disc integrity). Standard physeal and disc evaluation using histology reduces 3D geometries to single planar samples. Methods Five-week-old calves received anterolateral flexible spinal tethers (n = 6) or sham surgeries (n = 6) followed by 6 months of growth. Individual motion segments were imaged by microtomograph (36 μm). Physeal space and disc space thickness maps were generated from surface reconstructions. Normalized thickness differences were compared between instrumented and contralateral sides of tether and sham groups (analysis of variance, p &lt; .05). Physeal closure was estimated and regions of bony bridging were marked closed. Results Tethering caused significant physeal thickness reduction on the instrumented side compared with the contralateral side (7.6% ± 2.0%; p = .0002). This reduction was greater (p = .003) in tethered physes than in the sham, which demonstrated no reduction (0.8% ± 3.7%; p = .6). Small regions of physeal closure were observed in sham and tether groups (medians of 1.4% and 0.1% and maximums of 6.8% and 2.7%, respectively). Tethered discs were 29% thinner than sham, but demonstrated no contralateral to instrumented-side thickness difference (5.2% difference; p = .3). Conclusions Tethering resulted in thinner physes on the tethered side without notable physeal closure. With no side differences in the sham group, tethering apparently applied instrument-sided compressive forces. Tethering also resulted in thinner discs, although they were apparently. Producing consistent histological samples is difficult; misaligned slices may lead to inaccurate conclusions. Evaluating entire physes or discs produces more robust results.</description><subject>Growth modulation</subject><subject>Intervertebral disc</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Scoliosis</subject><subject>Three-dimensional morphology</subject><subject>Vertebral physis</subject><issn>2212-134X</issn><issn>2212-1358</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kl1rFDEUhoNYbKn9A15ILr3ZMR8zk6yIIG1thZYK1sW7kElObMbsZJvMKPXXm-muFXrRQEgg73M4eTgIvaKkooS2b_uqzxtbMUJ5RURFSPMMHTBG2YLyRj5_uNff99FRzj0pS8qayuYF2mdiyQSX7QFa8RO88nnSwf_Ro48Djg6vII3QJR3wWYq_xxv8JegRMtaDxSc-m3f4-gbwqXNgxjwDu9hltFO4r_IS7TkdMhztzkP07dPp9fH54uLq7PPxx4uF4YI0C9c6UlOjaWdN22lGwTFra9NApx1dWmFbSywFIUWzNAb4khICrShbtx0IfojebOtuUrydII9qXfqDEPQAccqKylpISbmco2wbNSnmnMCpTfJrne4UJWpWqno1K1WzUkWEKkoL9HpXf-rWYB-QfwJLgG8DuTwNPyCpPk5pKH9-uuz7LQXFzS9fqGw8DAasT8WpstE_jX94hJvgB290-Al3kP93oDJTRH2dR2GeBMoJoYQz_hfS5q07</recordid><startdate>201309</startdate><enddate>201309</enddate><creator>Newton, Peter O., MD</creator><creator>Glaser, Diana A., PhD</creator><creator>Doan, Joshua D., MEng</creator><creator>Farnsworth, Christine L., MS</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Springer International Publishing</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201309</creationdate><title>3D Visualization of Vertebral Growth Plates and Disc: The Effects of Growth Modulation</title><author>Newton, Peter O., MD ; Glaser, Diana A., PhD ; Doan, Joshua D., MEng ; Farnsworth, Christine L., MS</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3705-f6f041ca1bdc6ba21ef2dd4c5ebaf19d7d6d0d1e78759cce39100e670e6a6be73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Growth modulation</topic><topic>Intervertebral disc</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Scoliosis</topic><topic>Three-dimensional morphology</topic><topic>Vertebral physis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Newton, Peter O., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glaser, Diana A., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doan, Joshua D., MEng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farnsworth, Christine L., MS</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Spine deformity</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Newton, Peter O., MD</au><au>Glaser, Diana A., PhD</au><au>Doan, Joshua D., MEng</au><au>Farnsworth, Christine L., MS</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>3D Visualization of Vertebral Growth Plates and Disc: The Effects of Growth Modulation</atitle><jtitle>Spine deformity</jtitle><stitle>Spine Deform</stitle><addtitle>Spine Deform</addtitle><date>2013-09</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>1</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>313</spage><epage>320</epage><pages>313-320</pages><issn>2212-134X</issn><eissn>2212-1358</eissn><abstract>Abstract After tethered growth or sham surgery, spinal motion segments underwent microtomography to determine physeal and disc 3-dimensional (3D) morphology. Instrumented and contralateral sides of tether and sham surgical groups were compared. Objectives To determine the 3D morphological effects of growth modulation via anterolateral tethering on vertebral physeal and intervertebral disc morphology in a rapidly growing bovine model. Summary of background data Growth modulation acts through physeal loading. Providing a promising alternative to arthrodesis for scoliosis correction, tethering vertebral growth maintains further growth (open/functioning physes) and motion (disc integrity). Standard physeal and disc evaluation using histology reduces 3D geometries to single planar samples. Methods Five-week-old calves received anterolateral flexible spinal tethers (n = 6) or sham surgeries (n = 6) followed by 6 months of growth. Individual motion segments were imaged by microtomograph (36 μm). Physeal space and disc space thickness maps were generated from surface reconstructions. Normalized thickness differences were compared between instrumented and contralateral sides of tether and sham groups (analysis of variance, p &lt; .05). Physeal closure was estimated and regions of bony bridging were marked closed. Results Tethering caused significant physeal thickness reduction on the instrumented side compared with the contralateral side (7.6% ± 2.0%; p = .0002). This reduction was greater (p = .003) in tethered physes than in the sham, which demonstrated no reduction (0.8% ± 3.7%; p = .6). Small regions of physeal closure were observed in sham and tether groups (medians of 1.4% and 0.1% and maximums of 6.8% and 2.7%, respectively). Tethered discs were 29% thinner than sham, but demonstrated no contralateral to instrumented-side thickness difference (5.2% difference; p = .3). Conclusions Tethering resulted in thinner physes on the tethered side without notable physeal closure. With no side differences in the sham group, tethering apparently applied instrument-sided compressive forces. Tethering also resulted in thinner discs, although they were apparently. Producing consistent histological samples is difficult; misaligned slices may lead to inaccurate conclusions. Evaluating entire physes or discs produces more robust results.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>27927386</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jspd.2013.07.005</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2212-134X
ispartof Spine deformity, 2013-09, Vol.1 (5), p.313-320
issn 2212-134X
2212-1358
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1847881387
source SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Growth modulation
Intervertebral disc
Medicine & Public Health
Orthopedics
Scoliosis
Three-dimensional morphology
Vertebral physis
title 3D Visualization of Vertebral Growth Plates and Disc: The Effects of Growth Modulation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T17%3A47%3A59IST&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=3D%20Visualization%20of%20Vertebral%20Growth%20Plates%20and%20Disc:%20The%20Effects%20of%20Growth%20Modulation&rft.jtitle=Spine%20deformity&rft.au=Newton,%20Peter%20O.,%20MD&rft.date=2013-09&rft.volume=1&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=313&rft.epage=320&rft.pages=313-320&rft.issn=2212-134X&rft.eissn=2212-1358&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jspd.2013.07.005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1847881387%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=1847881387&rft_id=info:pmid/27927386&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S2212134X13001032&rfr_iscdi=true