Top

Open Access 08-04-2024 | Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis | Original Article

Tissue response following implantation with the posterior dynamic distraction device (PDDD) in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS)

Authors: Olivia Kristina Richard, Aléthéa Liens, DesiRae Muirhead, Klaus Weber

Abstract

Purpose

The PDDD is a ratchet-based, unidirectional expandable rod to treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), primarily by correcting scoliotic deformity without full spinal fusion. We hypothesized that the device will be fully tolerated by the host and, if aseptic screw loosening occurs, it will be unrelated to wear particle formation.

Methods

This study comprised tissue samples from seven patients from a prospective study (NCT04296903) to assess the PDDD’s safety and benefits, reoperated due to complications. Host response was assessed from histological slides (four levels/implant) in accordance with GLP and ISO10993-6:2016. The elementary chemical composition of wear particles present in tissue sections was quantified by energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX).

Results

Host reaction was minor, characterized by low levels of diverse inflammatory cells, mild fibrosis, occasional small necrotic foci, neovascularization, hemorrhage, and, rarely, small bone fragments. Twenty-four of 28 tissue sections displayed varying degrees of wear particles (black discoloration), and most sections (17) were scored as 1 (< 25% of the sample). The discoloration observed corresponded to black-appearing, fine granular pigment. EDX analysis confirmed particles were composed of titanium, aluminum, and vanadium. Twenty-six of 28 samples were scored zero for necrosis and 2/28 were scored 1. Eleven samples were scored zero for fibrosis, 12 as 1, and five as 2. No aseptic screw loosening occurred.

Conclusion

The PDDD induced minimal host reaction with little or no degeneration, inflammation or fibrosis. No changes present could be expected to promote device failure. The PDDD implant for treating AIS is well-tolerated and locally safe.

Available only for authorised users

Holewijn RM, de Kleuver M, van der Veen AJ et al (2017) A novel spinal implant for fusionless scoliosis correction: a biomechanical analysis of the motion preserving properties of a posterior periapical concave distraction device. Global Spine J 7:400–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568217699377CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Toth JM, Ankomah F, Kawakami N, Uno K (2022) A comparison of the inflammatory host response to particulate debris adjacent to unlocked and locked screws of a growth guidance system for early onset scoliosis. Eur Spine J 31:2301–2310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07271-2CrossRefPubMed

Hallab NJ (2009) A review of the biologic effects of spine implant debris: fact from fiction. SAS J 3:143–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esas.2009.11.005CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Yao Z, Lin TH, Pajarinen J et al (2015) Host response to orthopedic implants (metals and plastics). In: Host response to biomaterials: the impact of host response on biomaterial selection. Elsevier Inc., pp 315–373

Callejas JA, Gil J, Brizuela A et al (2022) Effect of the size of titanium particles released from dental implants on immunological response. Int J Mol Sci 23:7333. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23137333CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Willert H-G, Semlitsch M (1977) Reactions of the articular capsule to wear products of artificial joint prostheses. J Biomed Mater Res 11:157–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820110202CrossRefPubMed

Patiño JF, Castro D (1991) Necrotizing lesions of soft tissues: a review. World J Surg 15:235–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01659058CrossRefPubMed

Londono R, Badylak SF (2015) Factors which affect the host response to biomaterials. In: Host response to biomaterials. Elsevier, pp 1–12

Anderson JM, Rodriguez A, Chang DT (2008) Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin Immunol 20:86–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smim.2007.11.004CrossRefPubMed

10.

Arnin U, El-Hawary R, Betz RR et al (2019) Preclinical bench testing on a novel posterior dynamic deformity correction device for scoliosis. Spine Deform 7:203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSPD.2018.08.010CrossRefPubMed

11.

Mody DR, Esses SI, Heggeness MH (1994) A histologic study of soft-tissue reactions to spinal implants. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:1153–1156. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199405001-00011CrossRefPubMed

12.

Goldenberg Y, Tee JW, Salinas-La Rosa CM, Murphy M (2016) Spinal metallosis: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 25:1467–1473. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00586-015-4347-6CrossRefPubMed

13.

Stadhouder A, Holewijn RM, Haanstra TM et al (2021) High failure rates of a unilateral posterior peri-apical distraction device (ApiFix) for fusionless treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 103:1834–1843. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.20.02176CrossRef

14.

Ingham E, Fisher J (2005) The role of macrophages in osteolysis of total joint replacement. Biomaterials 26:1271–1286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.04.035CrossRefPubMed

15.

Li D, Gromov K, Søballe K et al (2008) Quantitative mouse model of implant-associated osteomyelitis and the kinetics of microbial growth, osteolysis, and humoral immunity. J Orthop Res 26(1):96–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/jorCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Wagner C, Kondella K, Bernschneider T, Heppert V, Wentzensen A, Hänsch GM (2003) Post-traumatic osteomyelitis: analysis of inflammatory cells recruited into the site of infection. Shock 20:503–510. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.shk.0000093542.78705.e3CrossRefPubMed

17.

Park J, Chang H, Yeom JS et al (2016) Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica revision surgeries following artificial disc replacement of cervical spine. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 50:610–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aott.2016.04.004CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Busche M, Bastian L, Riedemann NC et al (2005) Complete osteolysis of the dens with atlantoaxial luxation caused by infection with staphylococcus aureus a case report and review of the literature. Spine 30:369–374CrossRef

19.

Haidar R, Najjar M, Boghossian AD, Tabbarah Z (2010) Propionibacterium acnes causing delayed postoperative spine infection: review. Scand J Infect Dis 42:405–411CrossRefPubMed

20.

Hahn F, Zbinden R, Min K (2005) Late implant infections caused by Propionibacterium acnes in scoliosis surgery. Eur Spine J 14:783–788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0854-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Tequi B, Drugeon H, Passuti N, Touchais S (2008) Significance of propionibacterium acnes-positive samples in spinal instrumentation. Spine 33:971–976CrossRef

22.

Richards BR, Emara KM (2001) Delayed infections after posterior TSRH spinal instrumentation for idiopathic scoliosis: revisited. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:1990–1996CrossRefPubMed

23.

Portillo ME, Corvec S, Borens O, Trampuz A (2013) Propionibacterium acnes: an underestimated pathogen in implant-associated infections. Biomed Res Int 2013:804391. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/804391CrossRef

24.

Wawrzynski J, Gil JA, Goodman AD, Waryasz GR (2017) Hypersensitivity to orthopedic implants: a review of the literature. Rheumatol Ther 4:45–56CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Tissue response following implantation with the posterior dynamic distraction device (PDDD) in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS)
Authors: Olivia Kristina Richard
Aléthéa Liens
DesiRae Muirhead
Klaus Weber
Publication date: 08-04-2024
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword: Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
Published in: European Spine Journal
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08200-1

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Tissue response following implantation with the posterior dynamic distraction device (PDDD) in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content