A Novel Spinal Implant for Fusionless Scoliosis Correction: A Biomechanical Analysis of the Motion Preserving Properties of a Posterior Periapical Concave Distraction Device. (August 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Holewijn, Roderick M.; de Kleuver, Marinus; van der Veen, Albert J.; Emanuel, Kaj S.; Bisschop, Arno; Stadhouder, Agnita; van Royen, Barend J.; Kingma, Idsart
• Is Part Of: Global spine journal. Volume 7:Number 5(2017)
• Page Start: 400
• Page End: 409
• Publication Date: 2017-08
• Subjects: in vitro biomechanics -- nonfusion -- ApiFix -- adolescent idiopathic scoliosis -- less invasive scoliosis surgery; Spine -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Spine -- Diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Spine -- Abnormalities -- Periodicals; Spine -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.73
• DOI: 10.1177/2192568217699377
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2192-5682

Abstract

Study Design: Biomechanical study. Objective: Recently, a posterior concave periapical distraction device for fusionless scoliosis correction was introduced. The goal of this study was to quantify the effect of the periapical distraction device on spinal range of motion (ROM) in comparison with traditional rigid pedicle screw-rod instrumentation. Methods: Using a spinal motion simulator, 6 human spines were loaded with 4 N m and 6 porcine spines with 2 N m to induce flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR). ROM was measured in 3 conditions: untreated, periapical distraction device, and rigid pedicle screw-rod instrumentation. Results: The periapical distraction device caused a significant ( P < .05) decrease in ROM of FE (human, −40.0% and porcine, −55.9%) and LB (human, −18.2% and porcine, −17.9%) as compared to the untreated spine, while ROM of AR remained unaffected. In comparison, rigid instrumentation caused a significantly ( P < .05) larger decrease in ROM of FE (human, −80.9% and porcine, −94.0%), LB (human, −75.0% and porcine, −92.2%), and AR (human, −71.3% and porcine, −86.9%). Conclusions: Although no destructive forces were applied, no device failures were observed. Spinal ROM was significantly less constrained by the periapical distraction device compared to rigid pedicle screw-rod instrumentation. Therefore, provided that scoliosis correction is achieved, a more physiological spinal motion is expected after scoliosis correction with the posterior concave periapical distraction device.