Loading…

Biomechanical analysis of anterior scoliosis instrumentation: Differences between single and dual rod systems with and without interbody structural support

Nondestructive biomechanical testing was performed on bovine lumbar spines instrumented with multilevel scoliosis type anterior spine constructs. To determine the biomechanical effects from the number of anterior rods (1 vs 2) and the effects of interbody structural support on construct stiffness af...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976) Pa. 1976), 2002-04, Vol.27 (7), p.702-706
Main Authors: FRICKA, Kevin B, MAHAR, Andrew T, NEWTON, Peter O
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c315t-dd94e9e19e0cc111c1c80c824306bf2e7e0dabaabce5a1e8ff63cc13387cb8873
container_end_page 706
container_issue 7
container_start_page 702
container_title Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976)
container_volume 27
creator FRICKA, Kevin B
MAHAR, Andrew T
NEWTON, Peter O
description Nondestructive biomechanical testing was performed on bovine lumbar spines instrumented with multilevel scoliosis type anterior spine constructs. To determine the biomechanical effects from the number of anterior rods (1 vs 2) and the effects of interbody structural support on construct stiffness after anterior multisegmental instrumentation. Corrective surgery using anterior instrumentation for thoracolumbar and lumbar scoliosis has been performed with single rod and, more recently, with dual rod constructs. The biomechanical effect of one- or two-rod anterior instrumentation systems on construct stiffness and the addition or absence of interbody structural support have not been defined adequately in the literature. Eight bovine lumbar spines each underwent instrumentation using four different constructs: one rod without interbody support; one rod with titanium mesh interbody support at the L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5 disc spaces; two rods alone; and two rods with interbody support. Nondestructive cyclic testing in flexion-extension (+/-5 Nm), lateral bending (+/-5 Nm), and torsion (+/-2 Nm) were performed. The construct stiffness (Nm/ degrees ) of the four implant configurations was compared. With the addition of a second rod, the construct was significantly stiffer than a single rod construct in flexion (P = 0.006), extension (P = 0.02), and torsion (P = 0.01), but not in lateral bending. The addition of interbody structural support to the rod systems resulted in significantly stiffer constructs than those without cages in flexion (P = 0.03), but not in the other loading conditions (extension, lateral bending, torsion). Dual rod constructs were stiffer in torsion and flexion-extension loading than single rod constructs. Neither the number of rods nor the use of structural mesh interbody support had any effect on lateral bending stiffness. However, in a single rod system, the addition of interbody support increased stiffness in flexion. The use of structural support in dual rod constructs may be helpful in "setting" the desired lordosis, but adds little to construct stiffness.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/00007632-200204010-00006
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71576114</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>71576114</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c315t-dd94e9e19e0cc111c1c80c824306bf2e7e0dabaabce5a1e8ff63cc13387cb8873</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkUFv1DAQhS0EotvCX0C-wC2tJ944Dre20BapEhc4R44zpkaJvXgcVftb-LN12m3ri0fP33sj6zHGQZyC6NozUU6rZF3VQtRiK0BUq6TesA00ta4Amu4t2wipCrKV6ogdE_1dCQnde3YE0NVSqXrD_l_4OKO9M8FbM3ETzLQnTzy6MmdMPiZONk4-rqoPlNMyY8gm-xi-8m_eOUwYLBIfMN8jBk4-_Jmw2Ec-LiUzxZHTnjLOxO99vnt8WYe45JJYlgxx3PM12eYlFQctu11M-QN758xE-PFwn7DfV99_Xd5Utz-vf1ye31ZWQpOrcey22CF0KKwFAAtWC6vLv4UaXI0titEMxgwWGwOonVOygFLq1g5at_KEfXnK3aX4b0HK_ezJ4jSZgHGhvoWmVQDbAuon0KZIlND1u-Rnk_Y9iH4tpn8upn8p5lFSxfrpsGMZZhxfjYcmCvD5ABgqTbhkgvX0yslG151q5QOql5uc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>71576114</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Biomechanical analysis of anterior scoliosis instrumentation: Differences between single and dual rod systems with and without interbody structural support</title><source>LWW Online</source><creator>FRICKA, Kevin B ; MAHAR, Andrew T ; NEWTON, Peter O</creator><creatorcontrib>FRICKA, Kevin B ; MAHAR, Andrew T ; NEWTON, Peter O</creatorcontrib><description>Nondestructive biomechanical testing was performed on bovine lumbar spines instrumented with multilevel scoliosis type anterior spine constructs. To determine the biomechanical effects from the number of anterior rods (1 vs 2) and the effects of interbody structural support on construct stiffness after anterior multisegmental instrumentation. Corrective surgery using anterior instrumentation for thoracolumbar and lumbar scoliosis has been performed with single rod and, more recently, with dual rod constructs. The biomechanical effect of one- or two-rod anterior instrumentation systems on construct stiffness and the addition or absence of interbody structural support have not been defined adequately in the literature. Eight bovine lumbar spines each underwent instrumentation using four different constructs: one rod without interbody support; one rod with titanium mesh interbody support at the L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5 disc spaces; two rods alone; and two rods with interbody support. Nondestructive cyclic testing in flexion-extension (+/-5 Nm), lateral bending (+/-5 Nm), and torsion (+/-2 Nm) were performed. The construct stiffness (Nm/ degrees ) of the four implant configurations was compared. With the addition of a second rod, the construct was significantly stiffer than a single rod construct in flexion (P = 0.006), extension (P = 0.02), and torsion (P = 0.01), but not in lateral bending. The addition of interbody structural support to the rod systems resulted in significantly stiffer constructs than those without cages in flexion (P = 0.03), but not in the other loading conditions (extension, lateral bending, torsion). Dual rod constructs were stiffer in torsion and flexion-extension loading than single rod constructs. Neither the number of rods nor the use of structural mesh interbody support had any effect on lateral bending stiffness. However, in a single rod system, the addition of interbody support increased stiffness in flexion. The use of structural support in dual rod constructs may be helpful in "setting" the desired lordosis, but adds little to construct stiffness.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0362-2436</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1528-1159</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200204010-00006</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11923662</identifier><identifier>CODEN: SPINDD</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott</publisher><subject>Animals ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Bone Nails ; Cattle ; Diseases of the osteoarticular system ; Diseases of the spine ; Lumbar Vertebrae - anatomy &amp; histology ; Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery ; Medical sciences ; Pliability ; Scoliosis - surgery ; Spinal Fusion - instrumentation</subject><ispartof>Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976), 2002-04, Vol.27 (7), p.702-706</ispartof><rights>2002 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c315t-dd94e9e19e0cc111c1c80c824306bf2e7e0dabaabce5a1e8ff63cc13387cb8873</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=13582967$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11923662$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>FRICKA, Kevin B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MAHAR, Andrew T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NEWTON, Peter O</creatorcontrib><title>Biomechanical analysis of anterior scoliosis instrumentation: Differences between single and dual rod systems with and without interbody structural support</title><title>Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976)</title><addtitle>Spine (Phila Pa 1976)</addtitle><description>Nondestructive biomechanical testing was performed on bovine lumbar spines instrumented with multilevel scoliosis type anterior spine constructs. To determine the biomechanical effects from the number of anterior rods (1 vs 2) and the effects of interbody structural support on construct stiffness after anterior multisegmental instrumentation. Corrective surgery using anterior instrumentation for thoracolumbar and lumbar scoliosis has been performed with single rod and, more recently, with dual rod constructs. The biomechanical effect of one- or two-rod anterior instrumentation systems on construct stiffness and the addition or absence of interbody structural support have not been defined adequately in the literature. Eight bovine lumbar spines each underwent instrumentation using four different constructs: one rod without interbody support; one rod with titanium mesh interbody support at the L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5 disc spaces; two rods alone; and two rods with interbody support. Nondestructive cyclic testing in flexion-extension (+/-5 Nm), lateral bending (+/-5 Nm), and torsion (+/-2 Nm) were performed. The construct stiffness (Nm/ degrees ) of the four implant configurations was compared. With the addition of a second rod, the construct was significantly stiffer than a single rod construct in flexion (P = 0.006), extension (P = 0.02), and torsion (P = 0.01), but not in lateral bending. The addition of interbody structural support to the rod systems resulted in significantly stiffer constructs than those without cages in flexion (P = 0.03), but not in the other loading conditions (extension, lateral bending, torsion). Dual rod constructs were stiffer in torsion and flexion-extension loading than single rod constructs. Neither the number of rods nor the use of structural mesh interbody support had any effect on lateral bending stiffness. However, in a single rod system, the addition of interbody support increased stiffness in flexion. The use of structural support in dual rod constructs may be helpful in "setting" the desired lordosis, but adds little to construct stiffness.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Bone Nails</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Diseases of the osteoarticular system</subject><subject>Diseases of the spine</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - anatomy &amp; histology</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Pliability</subject><subject>Scoliosis - surgery</subject><subject>Spinal Fusion - instrumentation</subject><issn>0362-2436</issn><issn>1528-1159</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpFkUFv1DAQhS0EotvCX0C-wC2tJ944Dre20BapEhc4R44zpkaJvXgcVftb-LN12m3ri0fP33sj6zHGQZyC6NozUU6rZF3VQtRiK0BUq6TesA00ta4Amu4t2wipCrKV6ogdE_1dCQnde3YE0NVSqXrD_l_4OKO9M8FbM3ETzLQnTzy6MmdMPiZONk4-rqoPlNMyY8gm-xi-8m_eOUwYLBIfMN8jBk4-_Jmw2Ec-LiUzxZHTnjLOxO99vnt8WYe45JJYlgxx3PM12eYlFQctu11M-QN758xE-PFwn7DfV99_Xd5Utz-vf1ye31ZWQpOrcey22CF0KKwFAAtWC6vLv4UaXI0titEMxgwWGwOonVOygFLq1g5at_KEfXnK3aX4b0HK_ezJ4jSZgHGhvoWmVQDbAuon0KZIlND1u-Rnk_Y9iH4tpn8upn8p5lFSxfrpsGMZZhxfjYcmCvD5ABgqTbhkgvX0yslG151q5QOql5uc</recordid><startdate>20020401</startdate><enddate>20020401</enddate><creator>FRICKA, Kevin B</creator><creator>MAHAR, Andrew T</creator><creator>NEWTON, Peter O</creator><general>Lippincott</general><scope>IQODW</scope><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>20020401</creationdate><title>Biomechanical analysis of anterior scoliosis instrumentation: Differences between single and dual rod systems with and without interbody structural support</title><author>FRICKA, Kevin B ; MAHAR, Andrew T ; NEWTON, Peter O</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c315t-dd94e9e19e0cc111c1c80c824306bf2e7e0dabaabce5a1e8ff63cc13387cb8873</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Bone Nails</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Diseases of the osteoarticular system</topic><topic>Diseases of the spine</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - anatomy &amp; histology</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Pliability</topic><topic>Scoliosis - surgery</topic><topic>Spinal Fusion - instrumentation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>FRICKA, Kevin B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MAHAR, Andrew T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NEWTON, Peter O</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><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>Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>FRICKA, Kevin B</au><au>MAHAR, Andrew T</au><au>NEWTON, Peter O</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Biomechanical analysis of anterior scoliosis instrumentation: Differences between single and dual rod systems with and without interbody structural support</atitle><jtitle>Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976)</jtitle><addtitle>Spine (Phila Pa 1976)</addtitle><date>2002-04-01</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>702</spage><epage>706</epage><pages>702-706</pages><issn>0362-2436</issn><eissn>1528-1159</eissn><coden>SPINDD</coden><abstract>Nondestructive biomechanical testing was performed on bovine lumbar spines instrumented with multilevel scoliosis type anterior spine constructs. To determine the biomechanical effects from the number of anterior rods (1 vs 2) and the effects of interbody structural support on construct stiffness after anterior multisegmental instrumentation. Corrective surgery using anterior instrumentation for thoracolumbar and lumbar scoliosis has been performed with single rod and, more recently, with dual rod constructs. The biomechanical effect of one- or two-rod anterior instrumentation systems on construct stiffness and the addition or absence of interbody structural support have not been defined adequately in the literature. Eight bovine lumbar spines each underwent instrumentation using four different constructs: one rod without interbody support; one rod with titanium mesh interbody support at the L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5 disc spaces; two rods alone; and two rods with interbody support. Nondestructive cyclic testing in flexion-extension (+/-5 Nm), lateral bending (+/-5 Nm), and torsion (+/-2 Nm) were performed. The construct stiffness (Nm/ degrees ) of the four implant configurations was compared. With the addition of a second rod, the construct was significantly stiffer than a single rod construct in flexion (P = 0.006), extension (P = 0.02), and torsion (P = 0.01), but not in lateral bending. The addition of interbody structural support to the rod systems resulted in significantly stiffer constructs than those without cages in flexion (P = 0.03), but not in the other loading conditions (extension, lateral bending, torsion). Dual rod constructs were stiffer in torsion and flexion-extension loading than single rod constructs. Neither the number of rods nor the use of structural mesh interbody support had any effect on lateral bending stiffness. However, in a single rod system, the addition of interbody support increased stiffness in flexion. The use of structural support in dual rod constructs may be helpful in "setting" the desired lordosis, but adds little to construct stiffness.</abstract><cop>Philadelphia, PA</cop><cop>Hagerstown, MD</cop><pub>Lippincott</pub><pmid>11923662</pmid><doi>10.1097/00007632-200204010-00006</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0362-2436
ispartof Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976), 2002-04, Vol.27 (7), p.702-706
issn 0362-2436
1528-1159
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71576114
source LWW Online
subjects Animals
Biological and medical sciences
Biomechanical Phenomena
Bone Nails
Cattle
Diseases of the osteoarticular system
Diseases of the spine
Lumbar Vertebrae - anatomy & histology
Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery
Medical sciences
Pliability
Scoliosis - surgery
Spinal Fusion - instrumentation
title Biomechanical analysis of anterior scoliosis instrumentation: Differences between single and dual rod systems with and without interbody structural support
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T16%3A27%3A43IST&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=Biomechanical%20analysis%20of%20anterior%20scoliosis%20instrumentation:%20Differences%20between%20single%20and%20dual%20rod%20systems%20with%20and%20without%20interbody%20structural%20support&rft.jtitle=Spine%20(Philadelphia,%20Pa.%201976)&rft.au=FRICKA,%20Kevin%20B&rft.date=2002-04-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=702&rft.epage=706&rft.pages=702-706&rft.issn=0362-2436&rft.eissn=1528-1159&rft.coden=SPINDD&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/00007632-200204010-00006&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E71576114%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c315t-dd94e9e19e0cc111c1c80c824306bf2e7e0dabaabce5a1e8ff63cc13387cb8873%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=71576114&rft_id=info:pmid/11923662&rfr_iscdi=true