Biomechanical characteristics of a sleeve-type guided growth rod in a six-degree-of-freedom joint robot

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.3811

Abstract

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The treatment of early-onset scoliosis is difficult. The traditional growth rod system has proved its therapeutic effect, but it requires repeated surgical interventions, and the incidences of spontaneous fusion, surgical site infection, rod rupture and other complications are high. Therefore, a kind of growth rod system is needed, which not only can correct the physiological curve of the spine, but also allow the spine to grow while avoiding multiple surgical interventions and reducing spontaneous fusion.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the biomechanical properties of a sleeve-type guided growth rod in a six-degree-of-freedom joint robot.
METHODS: Eight spine specimens of the immature pigs were respectively instrumented with the sleeve-type guided growth rod system and the traditional pedicle screw internal fixation system, and a six-degree-of-freedom joint robot was used to test the immature pig spine specimens in the flexion-extension, lateral bending and axial rotation for flexibility test.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) In the range of motion test, there was no significant difference between the sleeve-type guided growth rod system and the traditional pedicle screw system (P > 0.05). The lateral bending range of motion was (30.50±5.32)° and (28.25±4.24)° respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The axial rotation range of motion was (67.88±9.55)° and (35.25±5.09)° respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). (2) In the neutral zone stiffness test, the difference at the flexion and extension between the neutral stiffness of the sleeve-type guided growth rod system and the traditional pedicle screw rod system was not statistically significant (P=0.914, 0.207). The neutral zone stiffness of the axial rotation was (0.05±0.01) N•m/(°) and (0.08±0.01) N•m/(°), and the difference was statistically significant (P=0.003). (3) It is concluded that compared with the traditional pedicle screw rod system, the range of motion of the sleeve-type guided growth rod system has increased in the axial rotation and lateral bending. At the same time, the stiffness of the specimen instrumented with the sleeve-type guided growth rod system was lower than when instrumented with the traditional pedicle screw rod system for axial rotation.

Key words: sleeve-type guided growth rod system, pedicle screw, internal fixation, biomechanics, range of motion, stiffness

CLC Number:

Xue Jingbo, Zhu Bin, Li Zepeng, Wang Cheng, Ouyang Zhihua, Yan Yiguo. Biomechanical characteristics of a sleeve-type guided growth rod in a six-degree-of-freedom joint robot [J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2021, 25(15): 2297-2302.

Figures/Tables 6

References

[1] THOMETZ J, LIU XC. Serial CAD/CAM bracing: an alternative to serial casting for early onset scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop. 2019;39:e185-e189.
[2] MARUYAMA T, KOBAYASHI Y, MIURA M, et al. Effectiveness of brace treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis. 2015;10:S12.
[3] MCMASTER MJ, MACNICOL MF. The management of progressive infantile idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1979;61:36-42.
[4] THOMPSON RM, HUBBARD EW, JO CH, et al. Brace Success Is Related to Curve Type in Patients with Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99:923-928.
[5] FEDORAK GT, STASIKELIS PJ, CARPENTER AM, et al. Optimization of casting in early-onset scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop. 2019;39:e303-e307.
[6] CANAVESE F, SAMBA A, DIMEGLIO A, et al. Serial elongation-derotation-flexion casting for children with early-onset scoliosis. World J Orthop. 2015;6:935-943.
[7] CAMPBELL RM JR, SMITH MD, MAYES TC, et al. The effect of opening wedge thoracostomy on thoracic insufficiency syndrome associated with fused ribs and congenital scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86: 1659-1674.
[8] HARDESTY CK, HUANG RP, EL-HAWARY R, et al. Early-onset scoliosis: updated treatment techniques and results. Spine Deform. 2018;6: 467-472.
[9] LIANG J, LI S, XU D, et al. Risk factors for predicting complications associated with growing rod surgery for early-onset scoliosis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2015;136:15-19.
[10] SUN ZJ, QIU GX, ZHAO Y, et al. Dual growing rod treatment in early onset scoliosis: the effect of repeated lengthening surgeries on thoracic growth and dimensions. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:1434-1440.
[11] BESS S, AKBARNIA BA, THOMPSON GH, et al. Complications of growing-rod treatment for early-onset scoliosis: analysis of one hundred and forty patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:2533-2543.
[12] AKGÜL T, DIKICI F, ŞAR C, et al. Growing rod instrumentation in the treatment of early onset scoliosis. Acta Orthop Belg. 2014,80:457-463.
[13] WILKINSON JT, SONGY CE, BUMPASS DB, et al. Curve modulation and apex migration using shilla growth guidance rods for early-onset scoliosis at 5-year follow-up. J Pediatr Orthop. 2017;37:e567-e574.
[14] LA ROSA G, OGGIANO L, RUZZINI L. Magnetically controlled growing rods for the management of early-onset scoliosis: a preliminary report. J Pediatr Orthop. 2017;37:79-85.
[15] CALDAS JC, PAIS-RIBEIRO JL, CARNEIRO SR. General anesthesia, surgery and hospitalization in children and their effects upon cognitive, academic, emotional and sociobehavioral development - a review. Paediatr Anaesth. 2004;14:910-915.
[16] SANKAR WN, ACEVEDO DC, SKAGGS DL. Comparison of complications among growing spinal implants. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35: 2091-2096.
[17] KWAN K, ALANAY A, YAZICI M, et al. Unplanned Reoperations in Magnetically Controlled Growing Rod Surgery for Early Onset Scoliosis With a Minimum of Two-Year Follow-Up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017; 42:E1410-E1414.
[18] LUQUE ER. Paralytic scoliosis in growing children. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982:202-209.
[19] KESKINEN H, HELENIUS I, NNADI C, et al. Preliminary comparison of primary and conversion surgery with magnetically controlled growing rods in children with early onset scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2016;25: 3294-3300.
[20] 邓海洋,邓海洋,吴双,等. 套筒型导向生长棒对幼猪脊柱生长影响的实验研究[J]. 中华骨科杂志,2018,38(6):361-369.
[21] 何斌,胡侦明,郝杰,等.后部不同结构切除对胸椎稳定性的影响[J]. 第三军医大学学报,2012,34(20):2101-2104.
[22] BELL KM, HARTMAN RA, GILBERTSON LG, et al. In vitro spine testing using a robot-based testing system: comparison of displacement control and “hybrid control”. J Biomech. 2013;46:1663-1669.
[23] THAWRANI DP, GLOS DL, COOMBS MT, et al. Transverse process hooks at upper instrumented vertebra provide more gradual motion transition than pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39:E826-832.
[24] QUICK ME, GRANT CA, ADAM CJ, et al. A biomechanical investigation of dual growing rods used for fusionless scoliosis correction. Clin Biomech(Bristol, Avon). 2015;30:33-39.
[25] HARTMAN RA, BELL KM, QUAN B, et al. Needle puncture in rabbit functional spinal units alters rotational biomechanics. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28:E146-153.
[26] SMIT TH, VAN TUNEN MS, VAN DER VEEN AJ, et al. Quantifying intervertebral disc mechanics: a new definition of the neutral zone. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:38.
[27] KAROL LA, JOHNSTON C, MLADENOV K, et al. Pulmonary function following early thoracic fusion in non-neuromuscular scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(6):1272-1281.
[28] SPONSELLER PD, THOMPSON GH, AKBARNIA BA, et al. Growing rods for infantile scoliosis in Marfan syndrome. Spine(Phila Pa l976). 2009; 34(16):1711-1715.
[29] LUHMANN SJ, MCCARTHY RE. A comparison of Shilla growth guidance system and growing rods in the treatment of spinal deformity in children less than 10 years of age. J Pediatr Orthop. 2017;37: e567-e574.
[30] ANDRAS LM, JOINER ER, MCCARTHY RE, et al. Growing Rods Versus Shilla Growth Guidance: Better Cobb Angle Correction and T1-S1 Length Increase But More Surgeries. Spine Deform. 2015;3:246-252.
[31] MCCARTHY RE, MCCULLOUGH FL. Shilla Growth Guidance for Early-Onset Scoliosis: Results After a Minimum of Five Years of Follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97:1578-1584.
[32] AKBARNIA BA, PAWELEK JB, CHEUNG KM, et al. Traditional Growing Rods Versus Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods for the Surgical Treatment of Early-Onset Scoliosis: A Case-Matched 2-Year Study. Spine Deform. 2014;2:493-497.
[33] ROLTON D, RICHARDS J, NNADI C. Magnetic controlled growth rods versus conventional growing rod systems in the treatment of early onset scoliosis: a cost comparison. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:1457-1461.
[34] KESKINEN H, HELENIUS I, NNADI C, et al. Preliminary comparison of primary and conversion surgery with magnetically controlled growing rods in children with early onset scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2016;25: 3294-3300.
[35] WILKE HJ, WENGER K, CLAES L. Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J. 1998;7:148-154.
[36] BOZKUS H, CRAWFORD NR, CHAMBERLAIN RH, et al. Comparative anatomy of the porcine and human thoracic spines with reference to thoracoscopic surgical techniques. Surg Endosc. 2005;19:1652-1665.
[37] STRATHE AB, SØRENSEN H, DANFAER A. A new mathematical model for combining growth and energy intake in animals: the case of the growing pig. J Theor Biol. 2009;261:165-175.
[38] WILKE HJ, MATHES B, MIDDERHOFF S, et al. Development of a scoliotic spine model for biomechanical in vitro studies. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2015;30:182-187.