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.
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.
Rohlmann
A
A
Biomechanics Laboratory, Charitè Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany. rohlmann@biomechanik.de
Zander
T
T
Burra
N K
NK
Bergmann
G
G
D001863:Bone Screws; D020342:Finite Element Analysis; D006801:Humans; D008159:Lumbar Vertebrae / Q000503:physiopathology* / Q000601:surgery; D008954:Models, Biological; D009984:Orthopedic Fixation Devices; D016059:Range of Motion, Articular / Q000502:physiology*; D012600:Scoliosis / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D013131:Spine / Q000254:growth & development* / Q000503:physiopathology; D013904:Thoracic Vertebrae / Q000503:physiopathology* / Q000601:surgery
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1998 Oct;13(7):548-559
11415833
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Mar 1;32(5):544-9
17334288
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Jun 1;30(11):1283-6
15928553
Eur Spine J. 2006 Apr;15(4):457-64
15912346
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Jun 1;30(11):E281-92
15928537
Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2003 Feb;6(1):27-32
12623435
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Nov 1;26(21):2354-61
11679821
Scoliosis. 2006 Mar 31;1(1):2
16759428
Biomed Tech (Berl). 2005 Nov;50(11):361-5
16370149
J Biomech. 1994 Feb;27(2):177-81
8132685
Orthopade. 2007 Mar;36(3):205-6, 208-11
17333069
Comput Aided Surg. 2004;9(1-2):17-25
15792933
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Aug 15;29(16):1755-63
15303019
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2004 Feb;19(2):190-5
14967583