A biomechanical investigation of dual growing rods used for fusionless scoliosis correction

Quick, Mark E., Grant, Caroline A., Adam, Clayton J., Askin, Geoffrey N., Labrom, Robert D., & Pearcy, Mark J. (2015) A biomechanical investigation of dual growing rods used for fusionless scoliosis correction. Clinical Biomechanics, 30(1), pp. 33-39.

View at publisher

Abstract

Background

The use of dual growing rods is a fusionless surgical approach to the treatment of early onset scoliosis (EOS), which aims of harness potential growth in order to correct spinal deformity. The purpose of this study was to compare the in-vitro biomechanical response of two different dual rod designs under axial rotation loading.

Methods

Six porcine spines were dissected into seven level thoracolumbar multi-segmental units. Each specimen was mounted and tested in a biaxial Instron machine, undergoing nondestructive left/right axial rotation to peak moments of 4Nm at a constant rotation rate of 8deg.s-1. A motion tracking system (Optotrak) measured 3D displacements of individual vertebrae. Each spine was tested in an un-instrumented state first and then with appropriately sized semi-constrained growing rods and ‘rigid’ rods in alternating sequence. Range of motion, neutral zone size and stiffness were calculated from the moment-rotation curves and intervertebral ranges of motion were calculated from Optotrak data.

Findings

Irrespective of test sequence, rigid rods showed significantly reduction of total rotation across all instrumented levels (with increased stiffness) whilst semi-constrained rods exhibited similar rotation behavior to the un-instrumented (P<0.05). An 11% and 8% increase in stiffness for left and right axial rotation respectively and 15% reduction in total range of motion was recorded with dual rigid rods compared with semi-constrained rods.

Interpretation

Based on these findings, the semi-constrained growing rods do not increase axial rotation stiffness compared with un-instrumented spines. This is thought to provide a more physiological environment for the growing spine compared to dual rigid rod constructs.

Impact and interest:

1 citations in Scopus
Search Google Scholar™

Citation counts are sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.

These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.

Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.

Full-text downloads:

9 since deposited on 09 Jan 2015
6 in the past twelve months

Full-text downloads displays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.

ID Code: 79923
Item Type: Journal Article
Refereed: Yes
Keywords: scoliosis, fusionless correction, growing rod, in vitro, porcine, biomechanical, range of motion, stiffness, intervertebral, multi-segment unit
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.11.008
ISSN: 0268-0033
Subjects: Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > ENGINEERING (090000) > BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING (090300) > Biomechanical Engineering (090302)
Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES (110000) > CLINICAL SCIENCES (110300) > Orthopaedics (110314)
Divisions: Current > Schools > School of Chemistry, Physics & Mechanical Engineering
Current > Institutes > Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Science & Engineering Faculty
Copyright Owner: Copyright 2014 Elsevier Ltd.
Copyright Statement: NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Clinical Biomechanics. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Clinical Biomechanics, [VOL 30, ISSUE 1, (2015)] DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.11.008
Deposited On: 09 Jan 2015 04:19
Last Modified: 05 Feb 2016 07:02

Export: EndNote | Dublin Core | BibTeX

Repository Staff Only: item control page