Biomechanical Evaluation of a Growth-Friendly Rod Construct

Abstract Background Distraction-type rods mechanically stabilize the thorax and improve lung growth and function by applying distraction forces at the rib, spine, pelvis, or a combination of locations. However, the amount of stability the rods provide and the amount the thorax needs is unknown. Meth...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Spine deformity 2017, Vol.5 (1), p.11-17
Hauptverfasser: Galvis, Sarah, BS, Arnold, Josh, BS, Mannen, Erin, PhD, Wong, Benjamin, MS, Sis, Hadley, MS, Cadel, Eileen, MS, Anderson, John, MD, Anderson, Dennis, PhD, Arnold, Paul, MD, Friis, Elizabeth, PhD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 17
container_issue 1
container_start_page 11
container_title Spine deformity
container_volume 5
creator Galvis, Sarah, BS
Arnold, Josh, BS
Mannen, Erin, PhD
Wong, Benjamin, MS
Sis, Hadley, MS
Cadel, Eileen, MS
Anderson, John, MD
Anderson, Dennis, PhD
Arnold, Paul, MD
Friis, Elizabeth, PhD
description Abstract Background Distraction-type rods mechanically stabilize the thorax and improve lung growth and function by applying distraction forces at the rib, spine, pelvis, or a combination of locations. However, the amount of stability the rods provide and the amount the thorax needs is unknown. Methods Five freshly frozen and thawed cadaveric thoracic spine specimens were tested for lateral bending, flexion/extension, and axial rotation in displacement control (1°/sec) to a load limit of ±5 Nm for five cycles after which a growth-friendly unilateral rod was placed in a simulated rib-to-lumbar attachment along the right side. The specimens were tested again in the same modes of bending. From the seven Optotrak Orthopedic Research Pin markers (Northern Digital Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) inserted into the top potting to denote T1, and the right pedicles at T2, T4, T5, T8, T9, and T11 and the Standard Needle Tip Pressure Transducers (Gaeltech, Isle of Skye, Scotland) inserted into the T4/T5 and T8/T9 discs, motion, stiffness, and pressure data were calculated. Parameters from the third cycle of the intact case and the construct case were compared using two-tailed paired t tests with 0.05 as the level of significance. Results With the construct attached, the T1–T4 segment showed a 30% increase in neutral zone stiffness during extension (p = .001); the T8–T12 segment experienced a 63% reduction in the in-plane range of motion during flexion (p = .04); and the T8/T9 spinal motion unit had a significant decrease of 24% in elastic zone stiffness during left axial rotation (p = .04). Conclusions It is clear the device as tested here does not produce large biomechanical changes, but the balance between providing desired changes while preventing complications remains difficult.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jspd.2016.09.003
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5621639</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S2212134X16301137</els_id><sourcerecordid>1854615095</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4693-9bc78054b67a29dfb07c213c7ee2b16b1cf17f19bec499d7a24b25c95837daa93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kltv1DAQhS0EolXpH-AB5ZGXBF9ysQWqRFdtQaqExEXibeQ4k65D1l7sZNH-exy2LJeH-sWW5pzj0TdDyHNGC0ZZ_WoohrjtCp7eBVUFpeIROeWc8ZyJSj4-vsuvJ-Q8xoGmI2XJZPWUnHBJhaylPCWvL63foFlrZ40es6udHmc9We8y32c6uwn-x7TOr4NF14377KPvspV3cQqzmZ6RJ70eI57f32fky_XV59W7_PbDzfvV29vclLUSuWpNI2lVtnWjuer6ljaGM2EaRN6yumWmZ03PVIumVKpLorLllVGVFE2ntRJn5OKQu53bDXYG3RT0CNtgNzrswWsL_1acXcOd30FVc1aLJeDlfUDw32eME2xsNDiO2qGfIyQoZc0qqqok5QepCT7GgP3xG0ZhAQ8DLOBhAQ9UQQKfTC_-bvBo-Y05CcRBEFPJ3WGAwc_BJWgPx745uDDB3dnkiibNwWBnA5oJOm8ftl_8Zzej_TXmb7jH-KcDiBwofFoWZtmXhIwyJhrxE1oSups</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1854615095</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Biomechanical Evaluation of a Growth-Friendly Rod Construct</title><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Galvis, Sarah, BS ; Arnold, Josh, BS ; Mannen, Erin, PhD ; Wong, Benjamin, MS ; Sis, Hadley, MS ; Cadel, Eileen, MS ; Anderson, John, MD ; Anderson, Dennis, PhD ; Arnold, Paul, MD ; Friis, Elizabeth, PhD</creator><creatorcontrib>Galvis, Sarah, BS ; Arnold, Josh, BS ; Mannen, Erin, PhD ; Wong, Benjamin, MS ; Sis, Hadley, MS ; Cadel, Eileen, MS ; Anderson, John, MD ; Anderson, Dennis, PhD ; Arnold, Paul, MD ; Friis, Elizabeth, PhD</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background Distraction-type rods mechanically stabilize the thorax and improve lung growth and function by applying distraction forces at the rib, spine, pelvis, or a combination of locations. However, the amount of stability the rods provide and the amount the thorax needs is unknown. Methods Five freshly frozen and thawed cadaveric thoracic spine specimens were tested for lateral bending, flexion/extension, and axial rotation in displacement control (1°/sec) to a load limit of ±5 Nm for five cycles after which a growth-friendly unilateral rod was placed in a simulated rib-to-lumbar attachment along the right side. The specimens were tested again in the same modes of bending. From the seven Optotrak Orthopedic Research Pin markers (Northern Digital Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) inserted into the top potting to denote T1, and the right pedicles at T2, T4, T5, T8, T9, and T11 and the Standard Needle Tip Pressure Transducers (Gaeltech, Isle of Skye, Scotland) inserted into the T4/T5 and T8/T9 discs, motion, stiffness, and pressure data were calculated. Parameters from the third cycle of the intact case and the construct case were compared using two-tailed paired t tests with 0.05 as the level of significance. Results With the construct attached, the T1–T4 segment showed a 30% increase in neutral zone stiffness during extension (p = .001); the T8–T12 segment experienced a 63% reduction in the in-plane range of motion during flexion (p = .04); and the T8/T9 spinal motion unit had a significant decrease of 24% in elastic zone stiffness during left axial rotation (p = .04). Conclusions It is clear the device as tested here does not produce large biomechanical changes, but the balance between providing desired changes while preventing complications remains difficult.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2212-134X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2212-1358</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jspd.2016.09.003</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28038688</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Autofusion ; Biomechanics ; Intradiscal pressure ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Orthopedics ; Scoliosis</subject><ispartof>Spine deformity, 2017, Vol.5 (1), p.11-17</ispartof><rights>Scoliosis Research Society</rights><rights>2016 Scoliosis Research Society</rights><rights>Scoliosis Research Society 2016</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Scoliosis Research Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4693-9bc78054b67a29dfb07c213c7ee2b16b1cf17f19bec499d7a24b25c95837daa93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4693-9bc78054b67a29dfb07c213c7ee2b16b1cf17f19bec499d7a24b25c95837daa93</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4622-7695 ; 0000-0003-4441-5411 ; 0000-0002-2152-5987</orcidid></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.2016.09.003$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1016/j.jspd.2016.09.003$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28038688$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Galvis, Sarah, BS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arnold, Josh, BS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mannen, Erin, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Benjamin, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sis, Hadley, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cadel, Eileen, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, John, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Dennis, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arnold, Paul, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Friis, Elizabeth, PhD</creatorcontrib><title>Biomechanical Evaluation of a Growth-Friendly Rod Construct</title><title>Spine deformity</title><addtitle>Spine Deform</addtitle><addtitle>Spine Deform</addtitle><description>Abstract Background Distraction-type rods mechanically stabilize the thorax and improve lung growth and function by applying distraction forces at the rib, spine, pelvis, or a combination of locations. However, the amount of stability the rods provide and the amount the thorax needs is unknown. Methods Five freshly frozen and thawed cadaveric thoracic spine specimens were tested for lateral bending, flexion/extension, and axial rotation in displacement control (1°/sec) to a load limit of ±5 Nm for five cycles after which a growth-friendly unilateral rod was placed in a simulated rib-to-lumbar attachment along the right side. The specimens were tested again in the same modes of bending. From the seven Optotrak Orthopedic Research Pin markers (Northern Digital Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) inserted into the top potting to denote T1, and the right pedicles at T2, T4, T5, T8, T9, and T11 and the Standard Needle Tip Pressure Transducers (Gaeltech, Isle of Skye, Scotland) inserted into the T4/T5 and T8/T9 discs, motion, stiffness, and pressure data were calculated. Parameters from the third cycle of the intact case and the construct case were compared using two-tailed paired t tests with 0.05 as the level of significance. Results With the construct attached, the T1–T4 segment showed a 30% increase in neutral zone stiffness during extension (p = .001); the T8–T12 segment experienced a 63% reduction in the in-plane range of motion during flexion (p = .04); and the T8/T9 spinal motion unit had a significant decrease of 24% in elastic zone stiffness during left axial rotation (p = .04). Conclusions It is clear the device as tested here does not produce large biomechanical changes, but the balance between providing desired changes while preventing complications remains difficult.</description><subject>Autofusion</subject><subject>Biomechanics</subject><subject>Intradiscal pressure</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Scoliosis</subject><issn>2212-134X</issn><issn>2212-1358</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kltv1DAQhS0EolXpH-AB5ZGXBF9ysQWqRFdtQaqExEXibeQ4k65D1l7sZNH-exy2LJeH-sWW5pzj0TdDyHNGC0ZZ_WoohrjtCp7eBVUFpeIROeWc8ZyJSj4-vsuvJ-Q8xoGmI2XJZPWUnHBJhaylPCWvL63foFlrZ40es6udHmc9We8y32c6uwn-x7TOr4NF14377KPvspV3cQqzmZ6RJ70eI57f32fky_XV59W7_PbDzfvV29vclLUSuWpNI2lVtnWjuer6ljaGM2EaRN6yumWmZ03PVIumVKpLorLllVGVFE2ntRJn5OKQu53bDXYG3RT0CNtgNzrswWsL_1acXcOd30FVc1aLJeDlfUDw32eME2xsNDiO2qGfIyQoZc0qqqok5QepCT7GgP3xG0ZhAQ8DLOBhAQ9UQQKfTC_-bvBo-Y05CcRBEFPJ3WGAwc_BJWgPx745uDDB3dnkiibNwWBnA5oJOm8ftl_8Zzej_TXmb7jH-KcDiBwofFoWZtmXhIwyJhrxE1oSups</recordid><startdate>2017</startdate><enddate>2017</enddate><creator>Galvis, Sarah, BS</creator><creator>Arnold, Josh, BS</creator><creator>Mannen, Erin, PhD</creator><creator>Wong, Benjamin, MS</creator><creator>Sis, Hadley, MS</creator><creator>Cadel, Eileen, MS</creator><creator>Anderson, John, MD</creator><creator>Anderson, Dennis, PhD</creator><creator>Arnold, Paul, MD</creator><creator>Friis, Elizabeth, PhD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Springer International Publishing</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4622-7695</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4441-5411</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2152-5987</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>2017</creationdate><title>Biomechanical Evaluation of a Growth-Friendly Rod Construct</title><author>Galvis, Sarah, BS ; Arnold, Josh, BS ; Mannen, Erin, PhD ; Wong, Benjamin, MS ; Sis, Hadley, MS ; Cadel, Eileen, MS ; Anderson, John, MD ; Anderson, Dennis, PhD ; Arnold, Paul, MD ; Friis, Elizabeth, PhD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4693-9bc78054b67a29dfb07c213c7ee2b16b1cf17f19bec499d7a24b25c95837daa93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Autofusion</topic><topic>Biomechanics</topic><topic>Intradiscal pressure</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Scoliosis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Galvis, Sarah, BS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arnold, Josh, BS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mannen, Erin, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Benjamin, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sis, Hadley, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cadel, Eileen, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, John, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Dennis, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arnold, Paul, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Friis, Elizabeth, PhD</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Spine deformity</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Galvis, Sarah, BS</au><au>Arnold, Josh, BS</au><au>Mannen, Erin, PhD</au><au>Wong, Benjamin, MS</au><au>Sis, Hadley, MS</au><au>Cadel, Eileen, MS</au><au>Anderson, John, MD</au><au>Anderson, Dennis, PhD</au><au>Arnold, Paul, MD</au><au>Friis, Elizabeth, PhD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Biomechanical Evaluation of a Growth-Friendly Rod Construct</atitle><jtitle>Spine deformity</jtitle><stitle>Spine Deform</stitle><addtitle>Spine Deform</addtitle><date>2017</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>5</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>11</spage><epage>17</epage><pages>11-17</pages><issn>2212-134X</issn><eissn>2212-1358</eissn><abstract>Abstract Background Distraction-type rods mechanically stabilize the thorax and improve lung growth and function by applying distraction forces at the rib, spine, pelvis, or a combination of locations. However, the amount of stability the rods provide and the amount the thorax needs is unknown. Methods Five freshly frozen and thawed cadaveric thoracic spine specimens were tested for lateral bending, flexion/extension, and axial rotation in displacement control (1°/sec) to a load limit of ±5 Nm for five cycles after which a growth-friendly unilateral rod was placed in a simulated rib-to-lumbar attachment along the right side. The specimens were tested again in the same modes of bending. From the seven Optotrak Orthopedic Research Pin markers (Northern Digital Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) inserted into the top potting to denote T1, and the right pedicles at T2, T4, T5, T8, T9, and T11 and the Standard Needle Tip Pressure Transducers (Gaeltech, Isle of Skye, Scotland) inserted into the T4/T5 and T8/T9 discs, motion, stiffness, and pressure data were calculated. Parameters from the third cycle of the intact case and the construct case were compared using two-tailed paired t tests with 0.05 as the level of significance. Results With the construct attached, the T1–T4 segment showed a 30% increase in neutral zone stiffness during extension (p = .001); the T8–T12 segment experienced a 63% reduction in the in-plane range of motion during flexion (p = .04); and the T8/T9 spinal motion unit had a significant decrease of 24% in elastic zone stiffness during left axial rotation (p = .04). Conclusions It is clear the device as tested here does not produce large biomechanical changes, but the balance between providing desired changes while preventing complications remains difficult.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>28038688</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jspd.2016.09.003</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4622-7695</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4441-5411</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2152-5987</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2212-134X
ispartof Spine deformity, 2017, Vol.5 (1), p.11-17
issn 2212-134X
2212-1358
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5621639
source SpringerLink Journals
subjects Autofusion
Biomechanics
Intradiscal pressure
Medicine & Public Health
Orthopedics
Scoliosis
title Biomechanical Evaluation of a Growth-Friendly Rod Construct
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T23%3A38%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Biomechanical%20Evaluation%20of%20a%20Growth-Friendly%20Rod%20Construct&rft.jtitle=Spine%20deformity&rft.au=Galvis,%20Sarah,%20BS&rft.date=2017&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=11&rft.epage=17&rft.pages=11-17&rft.issn=2212-134X&rft.eissn=2212-1358&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jspd.2016.09.003&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1854615095%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1854615095&rft_id=info:pmid/28038688&rft_els_id=S2212134X16301137&rfr_iscdi=true