How does implant distribution affect 3D correction and bone-screw forces in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis spinal instrumentation?

Franck Le Navéaux, A. Noelle Larson, Hubert Labelle, Xiaoyu Wang, Carl Éric Aubin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Optimal implant densities and configurations for thoracic spine instrumentation to treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis remain unknown. The objective was to computationally assess the biomechanical effects of implant distribution on 3D curve correction and bone-implant forces. Methods 3D patient-specific biomechanical spine models based on a multibody dynamic approach were created for 9 Lenke 1 patients who underwent posterior instrumentation (main thoracic Cobb: 43°–70°). For each case, a factorial design of experiments was used to generate 128 virtual implant configurations representative of existing implant patterns used in clinical practice. All instances except implant configuration were the same for each surgical scenario simulation. Findings Simulation of the 128 implant configurations scenarios (mean implant density = 1.32, range: 0.73–2) revealed differences of 2° to 10° in Cobb angle correction, 2° to 7° in thoracic kyphosis and 2° to 7° in apical vertebral rotation. The use of more implants, at the concave side only, was associated with higher Cobb angle correction (r = − 0.41 to − 0.90). Increased implant density was associated with higher apical vertebral rotation correction for seven cases (r = − 0.20 to − 0.48). It was also associated with higher bone-screw forces (r = 0.22 to 0.64), with an average difference between the least and most constrained instrumentation constructs of 107 N per implant at the end of simulated instrumentation. Interpretation Low-density constructs, with implants mainly placed on the concave side, resulted in similar simulated curve correction as the higher-density patterns. Increasing the number of implants allows for only limited improvement of 3D correction and overconstrains the instrumentation construct, resulting in increased forces on the implants.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)25-31
Number of pages7
JournalClinical Biomechanics
Volume39
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2016

Fingerprint

Bone Screws
Scoliosis
Thorax
Spine
Kyphosis
Bone and Bones

Keywords

  • Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis
  • Biomechanical modeling
  • Curve correction
  • Implant density
  • Implant distribution
  • Pedicle screw

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

How does implant distribution affect 3D correction and bone-screw forces in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis spinal instrumentation? / Le Navéaux, Franck; Larson, A. Noelle; Labelle, Hubert; Wang, Xiaoyu; Aubin, Carl Éric.

In: Clinical Biomechanics, Vol. 39, 01.11.2016, p. 25-31.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Le Navéaux, Franck ; Larson, A. Noelle ; Labelle, Hubert ; Wang, Xiaoyu ; Aubin, Carl Éric. / How does implant distribution affect 3D correction and bone-screw forces in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis spinal instrumentation?. In: Clinical Biomechanics. 2016 ; Vol. 39. pp. 25-31.
@article{3472462e04644319abd456d41c52f44c,
title = "How does implant distribution affect 3D correction and bone-screw forces in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis spinal instrumentation?",
abstract = "Background Optimal implant densities and configurations for thoracic spine instrumentation to treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis remain unknown. The objective was to computationally assess the biomechanical effects of implant distribution on 3D curve correction and bone-implant forces. Methods 3D patient-specific biomechanical spine models based on a multibody dynamic approach were created for 9 Lenke 1 patients who underwent posterior instrumentation (main thoracic Cobb: 43°–70°). For each case, a factorial design of experiments was used to generate 128 virtual implant configurations representative of existing implant patterns used in clinical practice. All instances except implant configuration were the same for each surgical scenario simulation. Findings Simulation of the 128 implant configurations scenarios (mean implant density = 1.32, range: 0.73–2) revealed differences of 2° to 10° in Cobb angle correction, 2° to 7° in thoracic kyphosis and 2° to 7° in apical vertebral rotation. The use of more implants, at the concave side only, was associated with higher Cobb angle correction (r = − 0.41 to − 0.90). Increased implant density was associated with higher apical vertebral rotation correction for seven cases (r = − 0.20 to − 0.48). It was also associated with higher bone-screw forces (r = 0.22 to 0.64), with an average difference between the least and most constrained instrumentation constructs of 107 N per implant at the end of simulated instrumentation. Interpretation Low-density constructs, with implants mainly placed on the concave side, resulted in similar simulated curve correction as the higher-density patterns. Increasing the number of implants allows for only limited improvement of 3D correction and overconstrains the instrumentation construct, resulting in increased forces on the implants.",
keywords = "Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, Biomechanical modeling, Curve correction, Implant density, Implant distribution, Pedicle screw",
author = "{Le Nav{\'e}aux}, Franck and Larson, {A. Noelle} and Hubert Labelle and Xiaoyu Wang and Aubin, {Carl {\'E}ric}",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2016.09.002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
pages = "25--31",
journal = "Clinical Biomechanics",
issn = "0268-0033",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How does implant distribution affect 3D correction and bone-screw forces in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis spinal instrumentation?

AU - Le Navéaux, Franck

AU - Larson, A. Noelle

AU - Labelle, Hubert

AU - Wang, Xiaoyu

AU - Aubin, Carl Éric

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

N2 - Background Optimal implant densities and configurations for thoracic spine instrumentation to treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis remain unknown. The objective was to computationally assess the biomechanical effects of implant distribution on 3D curve correction and bone-implant forces. Methods 3D patient-specific biomechanical spine models based on a multibody dynamic approach were created for 9 Lenke 1 patients who underwent posterior instrumentation (main thoracic Cobb: 43°–70°). For each case, a factorial design of experiments was used to generate 128 virtual implant configurations representative of existing implant patterns used in clinical practice. All instances except implant configuration were the same for each surgical scenario simulation. Findings Simulation of the 128 implant configurations scenarios (mean implant density = 1.32, range: 0.73–2) revealed differences of 2° to 10° in Cobb angle correction, 2° to 7° in thoracic kyphosis and 2° to 7° in apical vertebral rotation. The use of more implants, at the concave side only, was associated with higher Cobb angle correction (r = − 0.41 to − 0.90). Increased implant density was associated with higher apical vertebral rotation correction for seven cases (r = − 0.20 to − 0.48). It was also associated with higher bone-screw forces (r = 0.22 to 0.64), with an average difference between the least and most constrained instrumentation constructs of 107 N per implant at the end of simulated instrumentation. Interpretation Low-density constructs, with implants mainly placed on the concave side, resulted in similar simulated curve correction as the higher-density patterns. Increasing the number of implants allows for only limited improvement of 3D correction and overconstrains the instrumentation construct, resulting in increased forces on the implants.

AB - Background Optimal implant densities and configurations for thoracic spine instrumentation to treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis remain unknown. The objective was to computationally assess the biomechanical effects of implant distribution on 3D curve correction and bone-implant forces. Methods 3D patient-specific biomechanical spine models based on a multibody dynamic approach were created for 9 Lenke 1 patients who underwent posterior instrumentation (main thoracic Cobb: 43°–70°). For each case, a factorial design of experiments was used to generate 128 virtual implant configurations representative of existing implant patterns used in clinical practice. All instances except implant configuration were the same for each surgical scenario simulation. Findings Simulation of the 128 implant configurations scenarios (mean implant density = 1.32, range: 0.73–2) revealed differences of 2° to 10° in Cobb angle correction, 2° to 7° in thoracic kyphosis and 2° to 7° in apical vertebral rotation. The use of more implants, at the concave side only, was associated with higher Cobb angle correction (r = − 0.41 to − 0.90). Increased implant density was associated with higher apical vertebral rotation correction for seven cases (r = − 0.20 to − 0.48). It was also associated with higher bone-screw forces (r = 0.22 to 0.64), with an average difference between the least and most constrained instrumentation constructs of 107 N per implant at the end of simulated instrumentation. Interpretation Low-density constructs, with implants mainly placed on the concave side, resulted in similar simulated curve correction as the higher-density patterns. Increasing the number of implants allows for only limited improvement of 3D correction and overconstrains the instrumentation construct, resulting in increased forces on the implants.

KW - Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

KW - Biomechanical modeling

KW - Curve correction

KW - Implant density

KW - Implant distribution

KW - Pedicle screw

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84988005790&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84988005790&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2016.09.002

DO - 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2016.09.002

M3 - Article

C2 - 27639485

AN - SCOPUS:84988005790

VL - 39

SP - 25

EP - 31

JO - Clinical Biomechanics

JF - Clinical Biomechanics

SN - 0268-0033

ER -