Motion preservation surgery for scoliosis with a vertebral body tethering system: a biomechanical study.

PURPOSE: There is a paucity of studies on new vertebral body tethering (VBT) surgical constructs especially regarding their potentially motion-preserving ability. This study analyses their effects on the ROM of the spine. METHODS: Human spines (T10-L3) were tested under pure moment in four different conditions: (1) native, (2) instrumented with one tether continuously connected in all vertebrae from T10 to L3, (3) additional instrumented with a second tether continuously connected in all vertebrae from T11 to L3, and (4) instrumented with one tether and one titanium rod (hybrid) attached to T12, L1 and L2. The instrumentation was inserted in the left lateral side. The intersegmental ROM was evaluated using a magnetic tracking system, and the medians were analysed. Please check and confirm the author names and initials are correct. Also, kindly confirm the details in the metadata are correct. The mentioned information is correct RESULTS: Compared to the native spine, the instrumented spine presented a reduction of less than 13% in global ROM considering flexion-extension and axial rotation. For left lateral bending, the median global ROM of the native spine (100%) significantly reduced to 74.6%, 66.4%, and 68.1% after testing one tether, two tethers and the hybrid construction, respectively. In these cases, the L1-L2 ROM was reduced to 68.3%, 58.5%, and 38.3%, respectively. In right lateral bending, the normalized global ROM of the spine with one tether, two tethers and the hybrid construction was 58.9%, 54.0%, and 56.6%, respectively. Considering the same order, the normalized L1-L2 ROM was 64.3%, 49.9%, and 35.3%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The investigated VBT techniques preserved global ROM of the spine in flexion-extension and axial rotation while reduced the ROM in lateral bending.

Comparative FEM study on intervertebral disc modeling: Holzapfel-Gasser-Ogden vs. structural rebars.

Introduction: Numerical modeling of the intervertebral disc (IVD) is challenging due to its complex and heterogeneous structure, requiring careful selection of constitutive models and material properties. A critical aspect of such modeling is the representation of annulus fibers, which significantly impact IVD biomechanics. This study presents a comparative analysis of different methods for fiber reinforcement in the annulus fibrosus of a finite element (FE) model of the human IVD. Methods: We utilized a reconstructed L4-L5 IVD geometry to compare three fiber modeling approaches: the anisotropic Holzapfel-Gasser-Ogden (HGO) model (HGO fiber model) and two sets of structural rebar elements with linear-elastic (linear rebar model) and hyperelastic (nonlinear rebar model) material definitions, respectively. Prior to calibration, we conducted a sensitivity analysis to identify the most important model parameters to be calibrated and improve the efficiency of the calibration. Calibration was performed using a genetic algorithm and in vitro range of motion (RoM) data from a published study with eight specimens tested under four loading scenarios. For validation, intradiscal pressure (IDP) measurements from the same study were used, along with additional RoM data from a separate publication involving five specimens subjected to four different loading conditions. Results: The sensitivity analysis revealed that most parameters, except for the Poisson ratio of the annulus fibers and C01 from the nucleus, significantly affected the RoM and IDP outcomes. Upon calibration, the HGO fiber model demonstrated the highest accuracy (R2 = 0.95), followed by the linear (R2 = 0.89) and nonlinear rebar models (R2 = 0.87). During the validation phase, the HGO fiber model maintained its high accuracy (RoM R2 = 0.85; IDP R2 = 0.87), while the linear and nonlinear rebar models had lower validation scores (RoM R2 = 0.71 and 0.69; IDP R2 = 0.86 and 0.8, respectively). Discussion: The results of the study demonstrate a successful calibration process that established good agreement with experimental data. Based on our findings, the HGO fiber model appears to be a more suitable option for accurate IVD FE modeling considering its higher fidelity in simulation results and computational efficiency.

Tether pre-tension within vertebral body tethering reduces motion of the spine and influences coupled motion: a finite element analysis.

Anterior Vertebral Body Tethering (VBT) is a novel fusionless treatment option for selected adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients which is gaining widespread interest. The primary objective of this study is to investigate the effects of tether pre-tension within VBT on the biomechanics of the spine including sagittal and transverse parameters as well as primary motion, coupled motion, and stresses acting on the L2 superior endplate. For that purpose, we used a calibrated and validated Finite Element model of the L1-L2 spine. The VBT instrumentation was inserted on the left side of the L1-L2 segment with different cord pre-tensions and submitted to an external pure moment of 6 Nm in different directions. The range of motion (ROM) for the instrumented spine was measured from the initial post-VBT position. The magnitudes of the ROM of the native spine and VBT-instrumented with pre-tensions of 100 N, 200 N, and 300 N were, respectively, 3.29°, 2.35°, 1.90° and 1.61° in extension, 3.30°, 3.46°, 2.79°, and 2.17° in flexion, 2.11°, 1.67°, 1.33° and 1.06° in right axial rotation, and 2.10°, 1.88°, 1.48° and 1.16° in left axial rotation. During flexion-extension, an insignificant coupled lateral bending motion was observed in the native spine. However, VBT instrumentation with pre-tensions of 100 N, 200 N, and 300 N generated coupled right lateral bending of 0.85°, 0.81°, and 0.71° during extension and coupled left lateral bending of 0.32°, 0.24°, and 0.19° during flexion, respectively. During lateral bending, a coupled extension motion of 0.33-0.40° is observed in the native spine, but VBT instrumentation with pre-tensions of 100 N, 200 N, and 300 N generates coupled flexion of 0.67°, 0.58°, and 0.42° during left (side of the implant) lateral bending and coupled extension of 1.28°, 1.07°, and 0.87° during right lateral bending, respectively. Therefore, vertebral body tethering generates coupled motion. Tether pre-tension within vertebral body tethering reduces the motion of the spine.

Transosseous suture versus suture anchor fixation for inferior pole fractures of the patella in osteoporotic bone: a biomechanical study.

BACKGROUND: The surgical treatment of inferior patellar pole fractures can be a challenge, especially in geriatric patients, who are particularly frequently affected by osteoporosis. The objective of this biomechanical study was to compare the performance of suture anchor and transosseous suture fixation in fractures of the inferior patellar pole in context of bone mineral density. METHODS: Twelve fresh-frozen human cadaveric knees received a transverse osteotomy, simulating an AO/OTA 34C1.3 inferior pole fracture of the patella. These fractures were fixated with either suture anchors (SA; Corkscrew® FT 4.5 mm) or transosseous suture (TS; #2 FiberWire®). Cyclic loading tests were performed by pulling the quadriceps tendon against gravity from 90° flexion to almost full extension (5°) for 1000 cycles. Motion and fracture gap displacement were tracked until failure occurred. Subsequently, loading to failure tests followed. Differences between groups were compared using unpaired t-tests, and correlations were calculated with Pearson's correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The suture anchor group showed significantly fewer cycles to failure than the transosseous suture group (SA: 539.0 ± 465.6 cycles, TS: 1000 ± 0 cycles, P = 0.04). Bone mineral density correlated positively with cycles to failure in the suture anchor group (Pearson's r = 0.60, P = 0.02). No differences in fracture gap displacement could be proven after 100 cycles (SA: 4.1 ± 2.6 mm, TS: 6.5 ± 2.6 mm, P = 0.19); 500 cycles (SA: 6.4 ± 6.1 mm, TS: 9.6 ± 3.8 mm, P = 0.39); and 1000 cycles (SA: 4.0 ± 0.4 mm, TS: 11.0 ± 4.5 mm, P = 0.08). Furthermore, the mean destructive load to failure in the suture anchor group was also significantly lower than in the transosseous suture group (SA: 422.4 ± 212.2 N, TS: 825.7 ± 189.3 N, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Suture anchors may be a viable alternative to transosseous suture in younger patients for clinical advantages, but in osteoporotic bone, the more stable osteosynthesis with transosseous suture continues to prove superior. Therefore, trauma surgeons might consider the use of transosseous suture in elderly patients, especially in those presenting with low bone mineral density values.