Loading…

Biomechanics of cantilever “plow” during anterior thoracic scoliosis correction

Anterior instrumentation is often used for correction of thoracic scoliosis. Loss of spinal correction may occur after failure at the bone–implant interface, and forces on the bone–implant interface during scoliosis correction remain unclear. Evaluate two different mechanisms of loading associated w...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The spine journal 2006-09, Vol.6 (5), p.572-576
Main Authors: Mahar, Andrew T., Brown, David S., Oka, Richard S., Newton, Peter O.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c275t-33cecb99bee37f0836a4d1d47821a6beacff8dcabf6b56cc67a12f709747e4db3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c275t-33cecb99bee37f0836a4d1d47821a6beacff8dcabf6b56cc67a12f709747e4db3
container_end_page 576
container_issue 5
container_start_page 572
container_title The spine journal
container_volume 6
creator Mahar, Andrew T.
Brown, David S.
Oka, Richard S.
Newton, Peter O.
description Anterior instrumentation is often used for correction of thoracic scoliosis. Loss of spinal correction may occur after failure at the bone–implant interface, and forces on the bone–implant interface during scoliosis correction remain unclear. Evaluate two different mechanisms of loading associated with anterior scoliosis correction. In vitro biomechanics lab. Polyurethane foam and human cadaveric thoracic vertebral bodies were instrumented with transvertebral body screws. Bone–implant interface failure loads were measured during constrained, fixed-angle screw translation, as well as unconstrained translation allowing coronal plane screw rotation. Vertebral body staples were randomly assigned to both conditions. Data were consistent across foam and cadaveric specimens. Failures occurred at significantly lower loads during unconstrained translation (with rotation) compared with constrained translation. Staple usage significantly increased the load to failure in both testing modes. In cadaveric bone, the constrained plowing load to failure was 562N+110N versus 188N+20N in the unconstrained testing. With a staple, these values increased to 694N+53N and 530N+100N, respectively. The 280% increase in cadaveric failure loads when a staple was added in the unconstrained testing method exceeds previous reports. The unconstrained method of plow simulated anterior scoliosis instrumentation when a rod was cantilevered and compressed into position. Supplemental vertebral body staples may be clinically indicated, particularly at the ends of the construct where residual deforming forces remain the greatest.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.spinee.2006.02.004
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68783130</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1529943006000520</els_id><sourcerecordid>68783130</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c275t-33cecb99bee37f0836a4d1d47821a6beacff8dcabf6b56cc67a12f709747e4db3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1KxDAQx4Mofr-BSE_eWidJN2kvgopfIHhQzyGdTt0s3WZNuivefBB9uX0Su-yCN08zML__DPNj7IRDxoGr80kWZ64jygSAykBkAPkW2-eFLlKupNge-pEo0zKXsMcOYpwAQKG52GV7XJUy1xL22fOV81PCse0cxsQ3Cdqudy0tKCTLr-9Z6z-WXz9JPQ-ue0uGGQXnQ9KPfbDoMInoW-ejiwn6EAh757sjttPYNtLxph6y19ubl-v79PHp7uH68jFFoUd9KiUSVmVZEUndQCGVzWte57oQ3KqKLDZNUaOtGlWNFKLSlotGQ6lzTXldyUN2tt47C_59TrE3UxeR2tZ25OfRqEGF5BIGMF-DGHyMgRozC25qw6fhYFYyzcSsZZqVTAPCDDKH2Olm_7yaUv0X2tgbgIs1QMOXC0fBRHTUIdVupcLU3v1_4RcGTYv_</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68783130</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Biomechanics of cantilever “plow” during anterior thoracic scoliosis correction</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection</source><creator>Mahar, Andrew T. ; Brown, David S. ; Oka, Richard S. ; Newton, Peter O.</creator><creatorcontrib>Mahar, Andrew T. ; Brown, David S. ; Oka, Richard S. ; Newton, Peter O.</creatorcontrib><description>Anterior instrumentation is often used for correction of thoracic scoliosis. Loss of spinal correction may occur after failure at the bone–implant interface, and forces on the bone–implant interface during scoliosis correction remain unclear. Evaluate two different mechanisms of loading associated with anterior scoliosis correction. In vitro biomechanics lab. Polyurethane foam and human cadaveric thoracic vertebral bodies were instrumented with transvertebral body screws. Bone–implant interface failure loads were measured during constrained, fixed-angle screw translation, as well as unconstrained translation allowing coronal plane screw rotation. Vertebral body staples were randomly assigned to both conditions. Data were consistent across foam and cadaveric specimens. Failures occurred at significantly lower loads during unconstrained translation (with rotation) compared with constrained translation. Staple usage significantly increased the load to failure in both testing modes. In cadaveric bone, the constrained plowing load to failure was 562N+110N versus 188N+20N in the unconstrained testing. With a staple, these values increased to 694N+53N and 530N+100N, respectively. The 280% increase in cadaveric failure loads when a staple was added in the unconstrained testing method exceeds previous reports. The unconstrained method of plow simulated anterior scoliosis instrumentation when a rod was cantilevered and compressed into position. Supplemental vertebral body staples may be clinically indicated, particularly at the ends of the construct where residual deforming forces remain the greatest.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1529-9430</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-1632</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2006.02.004</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16934730</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Anterior scoliosis correction ; Bone Nails ; Bone Screws ; Constrained plow ; External Fixators ; Failure biomechanics ; Humans ; Materials Testing ; Prostheses and Implants ; Prosthesis Failure ; Scoliosis - physiopathology ; Scoliosis - surgery ; Screw loading ; Spinal Fusion - instrumentation ; Spinal Fusion - methods ; Thoracic Vertebrae - physiopathology ; Thoracic Vertebrae - surgery ; Unconstrained plow ; Weight-Bearing</subject><ispartof>The spine journal, 2006-09, Vol.6 (5), p.572-576</ispartof><rights>2006 Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c275t-33cecb99bee37f0836a4d1d47821a6beacff8dcabf6b56cc67a12f709747e4db3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c275t-33cecb99bee37f0836a4d1d47821a6beacff8dcabf6b56cc67a12f709747e4db3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16934730$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mahar, Andrew T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, David S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oka, Richard S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Newton, Peter O.</creatorcontrib><title>Biomechanics of cantilever “plow” during anterior thoracic scoliosis correction</title><title>The spine journal</title><addtitle>Spine J</addtitle><description>Anterior instrumentation is often used for correction of thoracic scoliosis. Loss of spinal correction may occur after failure at the bone–implant interface, and forces on the bone–implant interface during scoliosis correction remain unclear. Evaluate two different mechanisms of loading associated with anterior scoliosis correction. In vitro biomechanics lab. Polyurethane foam and human cadaveric thoracic vertebral bodies were instrumented with transvertebral body screws. Bone–implant interface failure loads were measured during constrained, fixed-angle screw translation, as well as unconstrained translation allowing coronal plane screw rotation. Vertebral body staples were randomly assigned to both conditions. Data were consistent across foam and cadaveric specimens. Failures occurred at significantly lower loads during unconstrained translation (with rotation) compared with constrained translation. Staple usage significantly increased the load to failure in both testing modes. In cadaveric bone, the constrained plowing load to failure was 562N+110N versus 188N+20N in the unconstrained testing. With a staple, these values increased to 694N+53N and 530N+100N, respectively. The 280% increase in cadaveric failure loads when a staple was added in the unconstrained testing method exceeds previous reports. The unconstrained method of plow simulated anterior scoliosis instrumentation when a rod was cantilevered and compressed into position. Supplemental vertebral body staples may be clinically indicated, particularly at the ends of the construct where residual deforming forces remain the greatest.</description><subject>Anterior scoliosis correction</subject><subject>Bone Nails</subject><subject>Bone Screws</subject><subject>Constrained plow</subject><subject>External Fixators</subject><subject>Failure biomechanics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Materials Testing</subject><subject>Prostheses and Implants</subject><subject>Prosthesis Failure</subject><subject>Scoliosis - physiopathology</subject><subject>Scoliosis - surgery</subject><subject>Screw loading</subject><subject>Spinal Fusion - instrumentation</subject><subject>Spinal Fusion - methods</subject><subject>Thoracic Vertebrae - physiopathology</subject><subject>Thoracic Vertebrae - surgery</subject><subject>Unconstrained plow</subject><subject>Weight-Bearing</subject><issn>1529-9430</issn><issn>1878-1632</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kM1KxDAQx4Mofr-BSE_eWidJN2kvgopfIHhQzyGdTt0s3WZNuivefBB9uX0Su-yCN08zML__DPNj7IRDxoGr80kWZ64jygSAykBkAPkW2-eFLlKupNge-pEo0zKXsMcOYpwAQKG52GV7XJUy1xL22fOV81PCse0cxsQ3Cdqudy0tKCTLr-9Z6z-WXz9JPQ-ue0uGGQXnQ9KPfbDoMInoW-ejiwn6EAh757sjttPYNtLxph6y19ubl-v79PHp7uH68jFFoUd9KiUSVmVZEUndQCGVzWte57oQ3KqKLDZNUaOtGlWNFKLSlotGQ6lzTXldyUN2tt47C_59TrE3UxeR2tZ25OfRqEGF5BIGMF-DGHyMgRozC25qw6fhYFYyzcSsZZqVTAPCDDKH2Olm_7yaUv0X2tgbgIs1QMOXC0fBRHTUIdVupcLU3v1_4RcGTYv_</recordid><startdate>200609</startdate><enddate>200609</enddate><creator>Mahar, Andrew T.</creator><creator>Brown, David S.</creator><creator>Oka, Richard S.</creator><creator>Newton, Peter O.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200609</creationdate><title>Biomechanics of cantilever “plow” during anterior thoracic scoliosis correction</title><author>Mahar, Andrew T. ; Brown, David S. ; Oka, Richard S. ; Newton, Peter O.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c275t-33cecb99bee37f0836a4d1d47821a6beacff8dcabf6b56cc67a12f709747e4db3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Anterior scoliosis correction</topic><topic>Bone Nails</topic><topic>Bone Screws</topic><topic>Constrained plow</topic><topic>External Fixators</topic><topic>Failure biomechanics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Materials Testing</topic><topic>Prostheses and Implants</topic><topic>Prosthesis Failure</topic><topic>Scoliosis - physiopathology</topic><topic>Scoliosis - surgery</topic><topic>Screw loading</topic><topic>Spinal Fusion - instrumentation</topic><topic>Spinal Fusion - methods</topic><topic>Thoracic Vertebrae - physiopathology</topic><topic>Thoracic Vertebrae - surgery</topic><topic>Unconstrained plow</topic><topic>Weight-Bearing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mahar, Andrew T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, David S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oka, Richard S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Newton, Peter O.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The spine journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mahar, Andrew T.</au><au>Brown, David S.</au><au>Oka, Richard S.</au><au>Newton, Peter O.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Biomechanics of cantilever “plow” during anterior thoracic scoliosis correction</atitle><jtitle>The spine journal</jtitle><addtitle>Spine J</addtitle><date>2006-09</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>572</spage><epage>576</epage><pages>572-576</pages><issn>1529-9430</issn><eissn>1878-1632</eissn><abstract>Anterior instrumentation is often used for correction of thoracic scoliosis. Loss of spinal correction may occur after failure at the bone–implant interface, and forces on the bone–implant interface during scoliosis correction remain unclear. Evaluate two different mechanisms of loading associated with anterior scoliosis correction. In vitro biomechanics lab. Polyurethane foam and human cadaveric thoracic vertebral bodies were instrumented with transvertebral body screws. Bone–implant interface failure loads were measured during constrained, fixed-angle screw translation, as well as unconstrained translation allowing coronal plane screw rotation. Vertebral body staples were randomly assigned to both conditions. Data were consistent across foam and cadaveric specimens. Failures occurred at significantly lower loads during unconstrained translation (with rotation) compared with constrained translation. Staple usage significantly increased the load to failure in both testing modes. In cadaveric bone, the constrained plowing load to failure was 562N+110N versus 188N+20N in the unconstrained testing. With a staple, these values increased to 694N+53N and 530N+100N, respectively. The 280% increase in cadaveric failure loads when a staple was added in the unconstrained testing method exceeds previous reports. The unconstrained method of plow simulated anterior scoliosis instrumentation when a rod was cantilevered and compressed into position. Supplemental vertebral body staples may be clinically indicated, particularly at the ends of the construct where residual deforming forces remain the greatest.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>16934730</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.spinee.2006.02.004</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1529-9430
ispartof The spine journal, 2006-09, Vol.6 (5), p.572-576
issn 1529-9430
1878-1632
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68783130
source ScienceDirect Freedom Collection
subjects Anterior scoliosis correction
Bone Nails
Bone Screws
Constrained plow
External Fixators
Failure biomechanics
Humans
Materials Testing
Prostheses and Implants
Prosthesis Failure
Scoliosis - physiopathology
Scoliosis - surgery
Screw loading
Spinal Fusion - instrumentation
Spinal Fusion - methods
Thoracic Vertebrae - physiopathology
Thoracic Vertebrae - surgery
Unconstrained plow
Weight-Bearing
title Biomechanics of cantilever “plow” during anterior thoracic scoliosis correction
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T16%3A41%3A45IST&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=Biomechanics%20of%20cantilever%20%E2%80%9Cplow%E2%80%9D%20during%20anterior%20thoracic%20scoliosis%20correction&rft.jtitle=The%20spine%20journal&rft.au=Mahar,%20Andrew%20T.&rft.date=2006-09&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=572&rft.epage=576&rft.pages=572-576&rft.issn=1529-9430&rft.eissn=1878-1632&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.spinee.2006.02.004&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68783130%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c275t-33cecb99bee37f0836a4d1d47821a6beacff8dcabf6b56cc67a12f709747e4db3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=68783130&rft_id=info:pmid/16934730&rfr_iscdi=true