Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Spine Journal 2/2008

01-02-2008 | Original Article

Flexible non-fusion scoliosis correction systems reduce intervertebral rotation less than rigid implants and allow growth of the spine: a finite element analysis of different features of orthobiom™

Authors: A. Rohlmann, T. Zander, N. K. Burra, G. Bergmann

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 2/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

The orthobiom™ non-fusion scoliosis correction system consists of two longitudinal rods, polyaxial pedicle screws, mobile and fixed connectors and a cross-connector. The mobile connectors can move along and around the rod, thus allowing length adaptation during growth. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of different features of this novel implant on intervertebral rotations, to calculate the movement of the mobile connectors along the rods for different loading cases and to compare the results with those of a rigid implant construct. A finite element analysis was performed using six versions (M1–M6) of a three-dimensional, nonlinear model of a spine ranging from T3 to L2. The models were loaded with pure moments of 7.5 N m in the three main anatomical planes. First, the validated intact model (M1) was studied. Then, the orthobiom™ implant system was inserted, bridging the segments between T4 and L1 (M2). The effect of pedicle screws only in every second vertebrae was investigated (M3). For comparison, three connection variations of screws and rods were investigated: (1) an implant with rigid screws and mobile connectors (M4), (2) an implant with non-locking polyaxial screws and fixed connectors (M5) and (3) a completely rigid implant construct (M6). For flexion, extension and lateral bending, intervertebral rotation was reduced at all implant levels due to the implants. A rigid implant construct (M6) and an implant with non-locking polyaxial screws and fixed connectors (M5) led to the strongest reduction of intervertebral rotation. The orthobiom™ non-fusion implant system (M2, M3) allowed much more intervertebral rotation than a rigid implant (M6). Differences in intervertebral rotations were small when polyaxial screws were placed at every second level only (M3) instead of at every level (M2). For axial rotation, intervertebral rotation was strongly reduced by a rigid implant construct (M6) and by an implant with rigid screws and mobile connectors (M4). For rotation, an implant with non-locking polyaxial screws (M2, M3, M5) led to nearly the same intervertebral rotations as in an intact spine without an implant (M1). The predicted maximum translation of the mobile connectors along the rod was 4.2 mm for extension, 3.1 mm for lateral bending, 1.6 mm for flexion and 0.8 mm for axial rotation. The movement of the connectors was highest for those closest to the ends of the rods. With rigid screws, the maximum translation was significantly reduced. This study, conducted under a load-controlled loading protocol, showed that intervertebral rotation was reduced much less by the non-fusion orthobiom™ system than by a rigid implant. The mobile connectors moved considerably along the rod when the spine was bent. It can be expected that the connectors also move along the rod as the adolescent grows, possibly leaving the discs intact until the patient is fully grown.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Asher MA, Burton DC (2006) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: natural history and long term treatment effects. Scoliosis 1:2PubMedCrossRef Asher MA, Burton DC (2006) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: natural history and long term treatment effects. Scoliosis 1:2PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Aubin CE, Petit Y, Stokes IA, Poulin F, Gardner-Morse M, Labelle H (2003) Biomechanical modeling of posterior instrumentation of the scoliotic spine. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 6:27–32CrossRef Aubin CE, Petit Y, Stokes IA, Poulin F, Gardner-Morse M, Labelle H (2003) Biomechanical modeling of posterior instrumentation of the scoliotic spine. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 6:27–32CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Gardner-Morse M, Stokes IA (1994) Three-dimensional simulations of the scoliosis derotation maneuver with Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation. J Biomech 27:177–181PubMedCrossRef Gardner-Morse M, Stokes IA (1994) Three-dimensional simulations of the scoliosis derotation maneuver with Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation. J Biomech 27:177–181PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Katz DE, Durrani AA (2001) Factors that influence outcome in bracing large curves in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 26:2354–2361PubMedCrossRef Katz DE, Durrani AA (2001) Factors that influence outcome in bracing large curves in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 26:2354–2361PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Kim WJ, Lee SH, Shin SW, Rivard CH, Coillard C, Rhalmi C (2005) The influence of fixation rigidity on intervertebral joints. An experimental comparison between a rigid and a flexible system. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 37:364–369 Kim WJ, Lee SH, Shin SW, Rivard CH, Coillard C, Rhalmi C (2005) The influence of fixation rigidity on intervertebral joints. An experimental comparison between a rigid and a flexible system. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 37:364–369
6.
go back to reference Lafage V, Dubousset J, Lavaste F, Skalli W (2004) 3D finite element simulation of Cotrel–Dubousset correction. Comput Aided Surg 9:17–25PubMedCrossRef Lafage V, Dubousset J, Lavaste F, Skalli W (2004) 3D finite element simulation of Cotrel–Dubousset correction. Comput Aided Surg 9:17–25PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Liu CL, Kao HC, Wang ST, Lo WH, Cheng CK (1998) Biomechanical evaluation of a central rod system in the treatment of scoliosis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 13:548–559CrossRef Liu CL, Kao HC, Wang ST, Lo WH, Cheng CK (1998) Biomechanical evaluation of a central rod system in the treatment of scoliosis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 13:548–559CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Marks M, Petcharaporn M, Betz RR, Clements D, Lenke L, Newton PO (2007) Outcomes of surgical treatment in male versus female adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients. Spine 32:544–549PubMedCrossRef Marks M, Petcharaporn M, Betz RR, Clements D, Lenke L, Newton PO (2007) Outcomes of surgical treatment in male versus female adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients. Spine 32:544–549PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Masharawi Y, Rothschild B, Dar G, Peleg S, Robinson D, Been E, Hershkovitz I (2004) Facet orientation in the thoracolumbar spine: three-dimensional anatomic and biomechanical analysis. Spine 29:1755–1763PubMedCrossRef Masharawi Y, Rothschild B, Dar G, Peleg S, Robinson D, Been E, Hershkovitz I (2004) Facet orientation in the thoracolumbar spine: three-dimensional anatomic and biomechanical analysis. Spine 29:1755–1763PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Masharawi Y, Rothschild B, Salame K, Dar G, Peleg S, Hershkovitz I (2005) Facet tropism and interfacet shape in the thoracolumbar vertebrae: characterization and biomechanical interpretation. Spine 30:E281–E292PubMedCrossRef Masharawi Y, Rothschild B, Salame K, Dar G, Peleg S, Hershkovitz I (2005) Facet tropism and interfacet shape in the thoracolumbar vertebrae: characterization and biomechanical interpretation. Spine 30:E281–E292PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Perie D, Aubin CE, Petit Y, Labelle H, Dansereau J (2004) Personalized biomechanical simulations of orthotic treatment in idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 19:190–195CrossRef Perie D, Aubin CE, Petit Y, Labelle H, Dansereau J (2004) Personalized biomechanical simulations of orthotic treatment in idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 19:190–195CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Rohlmann A, Richter M, Zander T, Klöckner C, Bergmann G (2006) Effect of different surgical strategies on screw forces after correction of scoliosis with a VDS implant. Eur Spine J 15:457–464PubMedCrossRef Rohlmann A, Richter M, Zander T, Klöckner C, Bergmann G (2006) Effect of different surgical strategies on screw forces after correction of scoliosis with a VDS implant. Eur Spine J 15:457–464PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Sham ML, Zander T, Rohlmann A, Bergmann G (2005) Effects of the rib cage on thoracic spine flexibility. Biomed Tech (Berl) 50:361–365CrossRef Sham ML, Zander T, Rohlmann A, Bergmann G (2005) Effects of the rib cage on thoracic spine flexibility. Biomed Tech (Berl) 50:361–365CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Watkins R, 4th, Watkins R III, Williams L, Ahlbrand S, Garcia R, Karamanian A, Sharp L, Vo C, Hedman T (2005) Stability provided by the sternum and rib cage in the thoracic spine. Spine 30:1283–1286PubMedCrossRef Watkins R, 4th, Watkins R III, Williams L, Ahlbrand S, Garcia R, Karamanian A, Sharp L, Vo C, Hedman T (2005) Stability provided by the sternum and rib cage in the thoracic spine. Spine 30:1283–1286PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference White AA III, Panjabi MM (1990) Clinical biomechanics of the spine, 2nd edn. J.B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia White AA III, Panjabi MM (1990) Clinical biomechanics of the spine, 2nd edn. J.B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia
16.
go back to reference Zander T, Rohlmann A, Bergmann G (2007) A validated finite element model of the thoracic spine. In: CMBBE 2006, Antibes, France Zander T, Rohlmann A, Bergmann G (2007) A validated finite element model of the thoracic spine. In: CMBBE 2006, Antibes, France
17.
go back to reference Zander T, Rohlmann A, Bock B, Bergmann G (2007) Biomechanische Konsequenzen von verschiedenen Positionierungen bewegungserhaltender Bandscheibenimplantate. Eine Finite-Elemente-Studie an der Lendenwirbelsäule. Orthopade 36:205–211PubMedCrossRef Zander T, Rohlmann A, Bock B, Bergmann G (2007) Biomechanische Konsequenzen von verschiedenen Positionierungen bewegungserhaltender Bandscheibenimplantate. Eine Finite-Elemente-Studie an der Lendenwirbelsäule. Orthopade 36:205–211PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Flexible non-fusion scoliosis correction systems reduce intervertebral rotation less than rigid implants and allow growth of the spine: a finite element analysis of different features of orthobiom™
Authors
A. Rohlmann
T. Zander
N. K. Burra
G. Bergmann
Publication date
01-02-2008
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 2/2008
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0480-1

Other articles of this Issue 2/2008

European Spine Journal 2/2008 Go to the issue