Biomechanical assessment of reduction forces measured during scoliotic instrumentation using two different screw designs

被引:7
作者
Driscoll M. [1 ]
Mac-Thiong J.-M. [1 ]
Labelle H. [1 ]
Slivka M. [2 ]
Stad S. [2 ]
Parent S. [1 ]
机构
[1] Spinologics, Inc., Saint-Lambert, QC J4P 1M8
[2] DePuy Synthes Spine, Inc., Raynham, MA 02767
基金
加拿大健康研究院; 加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会; 加拿大创新基金会;
关键词
Biomechanical model; Scoliosis; Spine instrumentation;
D O I
10.1016/j.jspd.2013.01.004
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Study Design: Biomechanical finite element models simulated deformity correction using pedicle screw instrumentation and measured forces at the screw-vertebra interface. Objectives: Compare 2 different screw designs with respect to reaction forces at screw-vertebra interfaces during scoliosis correction maneuvers. Summary of Background Data: Pedicle screw developments strive to enhance surgical techniques and improve patient safety. It is believed that a screw with increased lateral angulation and reduction tabs enables a more gradual correction, more effectively distributes corrective forces over multiple levels, and reduces forces at screw-vertebra interfaces compared with standard polyaxial screws. Methods: We selected 3 scoliotic patients and reconstructed their preoperative spinal profiles as finite element models using radiographic clinical measures. The osteoligamentous models were programmed and validated with mechanical properties from published literature. We used postoperative radiographs to determine instrumented levels and calibrate disc properties to corroborate simulated results with clinical data. We alternatively examined favored angle (FA) screws and polyaxial (PA) screws using correction steps characteristic to their design. We also explored sensitivity of screw forces consequent to misalignment with adjacent screws. Results: Simulated postoperative spinal profiles on average adhered to clinical measures within 5°. We observed no significant differences in simulated corrective profiles between screw types (5° or less). Compared with PA screws, FA screws reduced peak pullout and lateral forces by 27% and 35%, respectively, and correspondingly reduced mean pullout and lateral forces by 48% and 40%, respectively. Changes in peak and average pullout forces resulting from screw misalignment were 56% and 82% less, respectively, with FA screws. Conclusions: This analysis demonstrated reduced screw-vertebra peak and mean forces when using a pedicle screw with a favored angle bias and reduction tabs to correct scoliosis. Compared with PA screws, FA screws provide similar correction, decrease forces applied at the screw-vertebra interface, and are more forgiving if misaligned. © 2013 Scoliosis Research Society.
引用
收藏
页码:94 / 101
页数:7
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]  
Harrington P.R., Treatment of scoliosis: Correction and internal fixation by spine instrumentation, J Bone Joint Surg Am, 44, pp. 591-610, (1962)
[2]  
Luque E.R., Segmental spinal instrumentation for correction of scoliosis, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 163, pp. 192-198, (1982)
[3]  
Cotrel Y., Dubousset J., A new technic for segmental spinal osteosynthesis using the posterior approach, Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Motil, 70, pp. 489-494, (1984)
[4]  
Cotrel Y., Dubousset J., Guillaumat M., New universal instrumentation in spinal surgery, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 227, pp. 10-23, (1988)
[5]  
Esses S.I., Sachs B.L., Dreyzin V., Complications associated with the technique of pedicle screw fixation: A selected survey of ABS members, Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 18, pp. 2231-2238, (1993)
[6]  
McKinley T.O., McLain R.F., Yerby S.A., Et al., Characteristics of pedicle screw loading: Effect of surgical technique on intravertebral and intrapedicular bending moments, Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 24, pp. 18-24, (1999)
[7]  
Wang X., Aubin C.E., Crandall D., Labelle H., Biomechanical comparison of force levels in spinal instrumentation using monoaxial versus multi degree of freedom postloading pedicle screws, Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 36, (2011)
[8]  
Geiger F., More options in scoliosis patients with the Dual Innie Favored Angle Reduction Tab Screw (DI FAR screw), ArgoSpine News J, 21, pp. 102-105, (2009)
[9]  
Driscoll M., Aubin C.E., Moreau A., Parent S., Biomechanical comparison of fusionless growth modulation corrective techniques in pediatric scoliosis, Med Biol Eng Comput, 49, pp. 1437-1445, (2011)
[10]  
Shirazi-Adl S.A., Shrivastava S.C., Ahmed A.M., Stress analysis of the lumbar disc-body unit in compression. A three-dimensional nonlinear finite element study, Spine, 9, 2, pp. 120-134, (1984)