skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


  • NSF Public Access
  • Search Results
  • Finite Element Comparison of the Spring Distraction System and the Traditional Growing Rod for the Treatment of Early Onset Scoliosis
Title: Finite Element Comparison of the Spring Distraction System and the Traditional Growing Rod for the Treatment of Early Onset Scoliosis
Study Design.Finite element analysis (FEA). Objective.The aim of this study was to determine biomechanical differences between traditional growing rod (TGR) and spring distraction system (SDS) treatment of early-onset scoliosis. Summary of Background Data.Many “growth-friendly” implants like the TGR show high rates of implant failure, spinal stiffening, and intervertebral disc (IVD) height loss. We developed the SDS, which employs continuous, dynamic forces to mitigate these limitations. The present FEA compares TGR and SDS implantation, followed by an 18-month growth period. Methods.Two representative, ligamentous, scoliotic FEA models were created for this study; one representing TGR and one representing SDS. initial implantation, and up to 18 months of physeal spinal growth were simulated. The SDS model was continuously distracted over this period; the TGR model included two additional distractions following index surgery. Outcomes included differences in rod stress, spinal morphology and iVD stress-shielding. Results.Maximum postoperative von Mises stress was 249MPa for SDS, and 205MPa for TGR. During the 6-month TGR distraction, TGR rod stress increased over two-fold to a maximum stress of 417MPa, compared to a maximum of 262 MPa in the SDS model at 6-month follow-up. During subsequent follow-up periods, TGR rod stress remained consistently higher than stresses in the SDS model. Additional lengthenings in the TGR model led to a smaller residual curve (16.08) and higher T1-S1 growth (359 mm) at 18-month follow-up compared to the SDS model (26.98, 348 mm). During follow-up, there was less stress-shielding of the IVDs in the SDS model, compared to the TGR model. At 18-month follow-up, upper and lower IVD surfaces of the SDS model were loaded more in compression than their TGR counterparts (mean upper: +112 ± 19N; mean lower: +100 ± 17N). Conclusion.In the present FEA, TGR treatment resulted in slightly larger curve correction compared to SDS, at the expense of increased IVD stress-shielding and a higher risk of rod fractures. Level of Evidence.N/A  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1916636
PAR ID:
10608939
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Publisher / Repository:
Wolters Kluwer
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Spine
Volume:
47
Issue:
10
ISSN:
0362-2436
Page Range / eLocation ID:
E456 to E465
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; (, Spine Deformity)
    Abstract PurposeTo develop and validate a finite element (FE) model of a sacral pedicle subtraction osteotomy (S1-PSO) and to compare biomechanical properties of various multi-rod configurations to stabilize S1-PSOs. MethodsA previously validated FE spinopelvic model was used to develop a 30° PSO at the sacrum. Five multi-rod techniques spanning the S1-PSO were made using 4 iliac screws and a variety of primary rods (PR) and accessory rods (AR; lateral: Lat-AR or medial: Med-AR). All constructs, except one, utilized a horizontal rod (HR) connecting the iliac bolts to which PRs and Med-ARs were connected. Lat-ARs were connected to proximal iliac bolts. The simulation was performed in two steps with the acetabula fixed. For each model, PSO ROM and maximum stress on the PRs, ARs, and HRs were recorded and compared. The maximum stress on the L5–S1 disc and the PSO forces were captured and compared. ResultsHighest PSO ROMs were observed for 4-Rods (HR + 2 Med-AR). Constructs consisting of 5-Rods (HR + 2 Lat-ARs + 1 Med-AR) and 6-Rods (HR + 2 Lat-AR + 2 Med-AR) had the lowest PSO ROM. The least stress on the primary rods was seen with 6-Rods, followed by 5-Rods and 4-Rods (HR + 2 Lat-ARs). Lowest PSO forces and lowest L5–S1 disc stresses were observed for 4-Rod (Lat-AR), 5-Rod, and 6-Rod constructs, while 4-Rods (HR + Med-AR) had the highest. ConclusionIn this first FE analysis of an S1-PSO, the 4-Rod construct (HR + Med-AR) created the least rigid environment and highest PSO forces anteriorly. While 5- and 6-Rods created the stiffest constructs and lowest stresses on the primary rods, it also jeopardized load transfer to the anterior column, which may not be favorable for healing anteriorly. A balance between the construct’s rigidity and anterior load sharing is essential. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; (, Spine Deformity)
    Abstract PurposeTo assess biomechanics of a lumbar PSO stabilized with different multi-rod constructs (4-, 5-, 6-rods) using satellite and accessory rods. MethodsA validated spinopelvic finite element model with a L3 PSO was used to evaluate the following constructs: 2 primary rods T10-pelvis (“Control”), two satellite rods (4-rod), two satellite rods + one accessory rod (5-rod), or two satellite rods + two accessory rods (6-rod). Data recorded included: ROM T10-S1 and L2-L4, von Mises stresses on primary, satellite, and accessory rods, factor of safety yield stress, and force across the PSO surfaces. Percent differences relative to Control were calculated. ResultsCompared to Control, 4-rods increased PSO flexion and extension. Lower PSO ROMs were observed for 5- and 6-rods compared to 4-rods. However, 4-rod (348.6 N) and 5-rod (343.2 N) showed higher PSO forces than 2-rods (336 N) and 6-rods had lower PSO forces (324.2 N). 5- and 6-rods led to the lowest rod von Mises stresses across the PSO. 6-rod had the maximum factor of safety on the primary rods. ConclusionsIn this finite element analysis, 4-rods reduced stresses on primary rods across a lumbar PSO. Although increased rigidity afforded by 5- and 6-rods decreased rod stresses, it resulted in less load transfer to the anterior vertebral column (particularly for 6-rod), which may not be favorable for the healing of the anterior column. A balance between the construct’s rigidity and anterior load sharing is essential. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; (, European Spine Journal)
    Abstract PurposeMulti-rod constructs are used commonly to stabilize pedicle subtraction osteotomies (PSO). This study aimed to evaluate biomechanical properties of different satellite rod configurations and effects of screw-type spanning a PSO. MethodsA validated 3D spinopelvic finite element model with a L3 PSO (30°) was used to evaluate 5 models: (1) Control (T10–pelvis + 2 rods); (2) lateral satellite rods connected via offsets to monoaxial screws (LatSat-Mono) or (3) polyaxial screws (LatSat-Poly); (4) in-line satellite rods connected to monoaxial screws (InSat-Mono) or (4) polyaxial screws (InSat-Poly). Global and PSO range of motions (ROM) were recorded. Rods’ von Mises stresses and PSO forces were recorded and the percent differences from Control were calculated. ResultsAll satellite rods (save InSat-Mono) increased PSO ROM and decreased primary rods’ von Mises stresses at the PSO. Lateral rods increased PSO forces (LatSat-Mono:347.1 N; LatSat-Poly:348.6 N; Control:336 N) and had relatively lower stresses, while in-line rods decreased PSO forces (InSat-Mono:280.1 N; InSat-Poly:330.7 N) and had relatively higher stresses. Relative to polyaxial screws, monoaxial screws further decreased PSO ROM, increased satellite rods’ stresses, and decreased PSO forces for in-line rods, but did not change PSO forces for lateral rods. ConclusionMulti-rod constructs using in-line and lateral satellite rods across a PSO reduced primary rods' stresses. Subtle differences in biomechanics suggest lateral satellite rods, irrespective of screw type, increase PSO forces and lower rod stresses compared to in-line satellite rods, which had a high degree of posterior instrumentation stress shielding and lower PSO forces. Clinical studies are warranted to determine if these findings influence clinical outcomes. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; (, Neurospine)
    Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the biomechanical differences of different rod configurations following anterior column realignment (ACR) and pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) for an optimal correction technique and rod configuration that would minimize the risk of rod failure.Methods: A validated spinopelvic (L1-pelvis) finite element model was used to simulate ACR at the L3–4 level. The ACR procedure was followed by dual-rod fixation, and for 4-rod constructs, either medial/lateral accessory rods (connected to primary rods) or satellite rods (directly connected to ACR level screws). The range of motion (ROM), maximum von Mises stress on the rods, and factor of safety (FOS) were calculated for the ACR models and compared to the existing literature of different PSO rod configurations.Results: All of the 4-rod ACR constructs showed a reduction in ROM and maximum von Mises stress compared to the dual-rod ACR construct. Additionally, all of the 4-rod ACR constructs showed greater percentage reduction in ROM and maximum von Mises stress compared to the PSO 4-rod configurations. The ACR satellite rod construct had the maximum stress reduction i.e., 47.3% compared to dual-rod construct and showed the highest FOS (4.76). These findings are consistent with existing literature that supports the use of satellite rods to reduce the occurrence of rod fracture.Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the ACR satellite rod construct may be the most beneficial in reducing the risk of rod failure compared to all other PSO and ACR constructs. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; (, Global Spine Journal)
    Study DesignFinite element (FE) study. ObjectivePedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) is a surgical method to correct sagittal plane deformities. In this study, we aimed to investigate the biomechanical effects of lumbar disc degeneration on the instrumentation following PSO and assess the effects of using interbody spacers adjacent to the PSO level in a long instrumented spinal construct. MethodsA spinopelvic model (T10-pelvis) with PSO at the L3 level was used to generate 3 different simplified grades of degenerated lumbar discs (mild (Pfirrmann grade III), moderate (Pfirrmann grade IV), and severe (Pfirrmann grade V)). Instrumentation included eighteen pedicle screws and bilateral primary rods. To investigate the effect of interbody spacers, the model with normal disc height was modified to accommodate 2 interbody spacers adjacent to the PSO level through a lateral approach. For the models, the rods’ stress distribution, PSO site force values, and the spine range of motion (ROM) were recorded. ResultsThe mildly, moderately, and severely degenerated models indicated approximately 10%, 26%, and 40% decrease in flexion/extension motion, respectively. Supplementing the instrumented spinopelvic PSO model using interbody spacers reduced the ROM by 22%, 21%, 4%, and 11% in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, respectively. The FE results illustrated lower von Mises stress on the rods and higher forces at the PSO site at higher degeneration grades and while using the interbody spacers. ConclusionsLarger and less degenerated discs adjacent to the PSO site may warrant consideration for interbody cage instrumentation to decrease the risk of rod fracture and PSO site non-union. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email