Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, 20:1735 | Cite as

Intervertebral disc changes with angulation, compression and reduced mobility simulating altered mechanical environment in scoliosis

  • Ian A. F. Stokes
  • Carole McBride
  • David D. Aronsson
  • Peter J. Roughley
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The intervertebral discs become wedged and narrowed in scoliosis, and this may result from altered biomechanical environment. The effects of four permutations of disc compression, angulation and reduced mobility were studied to identify possible causes of progressive disc deformity in scoliosis. The purpose of this study was to document morphological and biomechanical changes in four different models of altered mechanical environment in intervertebral discs of growing rats and in a sham and control groups.

Methods

External rings were attached by percutaneous pins transfixing adjacent caudal vertebrae of 5-week-old Sprague–Dawley rats. Four experimental Groups of animals underwent permutations of the imposed mechanical conditions (A) 15° disc angulation, (B) angulation with 0.1 MPa compression, (C) 0.1 MPa compression and (R) reduced mobility (N = 20 per group), and they were compared with a sham group (N = 12) and control group (N = 8) (total of 6 groups of animals). The altered mechanical conditions were applied for 5 weeks. Intervertebral disc space was measured from micro-CT images at weeks 1 and 5. Post euthanasia, lateral bending stiffness of experimental and within-animal control discs was measured in a mechanical testing jig and collagen crimp was measured from histological sections.

Results

After 5 weeks, micro-CT images showed disc space loss averaging 35, 53, 56 and 35% of the adjacent disc values in the four intervention groups. Lateral bending stiffness was 4.2 times that of within-animal controls in Group B and 2.3 times in Group R. The minimum stiffness occurred at an angle close to the in vivo value, indicating that angulated discs had adapted to the imposed deformity, this is also supported by measurements of collagen crimping at concave and convex sides of the disc annuli.

Conclusion

Loss of disc space was present in all of the instrumented discs. Thus, reduced mobility, that was common to all interventions, may be a major source of the observed disc changes and may be a factor in disc deformity in scoliosis. Clinically, it is possible that rigid bracing for control of scoliosis progression may have secondary harmful effects by reducing spinal mobility.

Keywords

Intervertebral disc In vivo Growth, deformity Rat model, biomechanics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was made possible by a Grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH R01 AR 053132). Some technical support was provided by Haddon Pantel.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Antoniou J, Arlet V, Goswami T, Aebi M, Alini M (2001) Elevated synthetic activity in the convex side of scoliotic intervertebral discs and endplates compared with normal tissues. Spine 26(10):E198–E206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bushell GR, Ghosh DP, Taylor TK, Sutherland JM, Braund KG (1978) The effect of spinal fusion on the collagen and proteoglycans of the canine intervertebral disc. J Surg Res 25(1):61–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ching CT, Chow DH, Yao FY, Holmes AD (2003) The effect of cyclic compression on the mechanical properties of the inter-vertebral disc: an in vivo study in a rat tail model. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 18(3):182–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cole TC, Ghosh P, Hannan NJ, Taylor TK, Bellenger CR (1987) The response of the canine intervertebral disc to immobilization produced by spinal arthrodesis is dependent on constitutional factors. J Orthop Res 5(3):337–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cole TC, Burkhardt D, Ghosh P, Ryan M, Taylor T (1985) Effects of spinal fusion on the proteoglycans of the canine intervertebral disc. J Orthop Res 3(3):277–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cassidy JJ, Hiltner A, Baer E (1989) Hierarchical structure of the intervertebral disc. Conn Tissue Res 23:75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Court C, Colliou OK, Chin JR, Liebenberg E, Bradford DS, Lotz JC (2001) The effect of static in vivo bending on the murine intervertebral disc. Spine J 1(4):239–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Diamant J, Keller A, Baer E, Litt M, Arridge RG (1972) Collagen; ultrastructure and its relation to mechanical properties as a function of ageing. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 180(60):293–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hulse Neufeld J, Haghighi P, Machado T (1990) Growth related increase in rat intervertebral disc size: a quantitative radiographic and histologic comparison. Lab Anim Sci 40:303–307PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iatridis JC, Mente PL, Stokes IAF, Aronsson DD, Alini M (1999) Compression induced changes to intervertebral disc properties in a rat tail model. Spine 24(10):996–1002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kroeber MW, Unglaub F, Wang H, Schmid C, Thomsen M, Nerlich A, Richter W (2002) New in vivo animal model to create intervertebral disc degeneration and to investigate the effects of therapeutic strategies to stimulate disc regeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27(23):2684–2690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laffosse JM, Odent T, Accadbled F, Cachon T, Kinkpe C, Viguier E, Sales de Gauzy J, Swider P (2010) Micro-computed tomography evaluation of vertebral end-plate trabecular bone changes in a porcine asymmetric vertebral tether. J Orthop Res 28(2):232–240PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lafon Y, Lafage V, Steib JP, Dubousset J, Skalli W (2010) In vivo distribution of spinal intervertebral stiffness based on clinical flexibility tests. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(2):186–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lai A, Chow DH, Siu WS, Holmes AD, Tang FH (2007) Reliability of radiographic intervertebral disc height measurement for in vivo rat-tail model. Med Eng Phys 29(7):814–819PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lai A, Chow DH, Siu SW, Leung SS, Lau EF, Tang FH, Pope MH (2008) Effects of static compression with different loading magnitudes and durations on the intervertebral disc: an in vivo rat-tail study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(25):2721–2727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Little JP, Adam CJ (2009) The effect of soft tissue properties on spinal flexibility in scoliosis: biomechanical simulation of fulcrum bending. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(2):E76–E82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lotz JC, Colliou OK, Chin JR, Duncan NA, Liebenberg E (1998) Compression-induced degeneration of the intervertebral disc: an in vivo mouse model and finite-element study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23(23):2493–2506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    MacLean JJ, Lee CR, Grad S, Ito K, Alini M, Iatridis JC (2003) Effects of immobilization and dynamic compression on intervertebral disc cell gene expression in vivo. Spine 28(10):973–981PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mente PL, Aronsson DD, Stokes IAF, Iatridis JC (1999) Mechanical modulation of growth for the correction of vertebral wedge deformities. J Orthop Res 17:518–524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Modi HN, Suh SW, Song HR, Yang JH, Kim HJ, Modi CH (2008) Differential wedging of vertebral body and intervertebral disc in thoracic and lumbar spine in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis—a cross sectional study in 150 patients. Scoliosis. 3:11Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nakamura T, Iribe T, Asou Y, Miyairi H, Ikegami K, Takakuda K (2009) Effects of compressive loading on biomechanical properties of disc and peripheral tissue in a rat tail model. Eur Spine J 18(11):1595–1603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Neufeld JH (1992) Induced narrowing and back adaptation of lumbar intervertebral discs in biomechanically stressed rats. Spine 17(7):811–816PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oegema TR Jr, Bradford DS, Cooper KM, Hunter RE (1983) Comparison of the biochemistry of proteoglycans isolated from normal, idiopathic scoliotic and cerebral palsy spines. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 8(4):378–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Petit Y, Aubin CE, Labelle H (2004) Patient-specific mechanical properties of a flexible multi-body model of the scoliotic spine. Med Biol Eng Comput 42(1):55–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roberts S, Menage J, Eisenstein SM (1993) The cartilage end-plate and intervertebral disc in scoliosis: calcification and other sequelae. J Orthop Res 11(5):747–757PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stokes IAF, Aronsson DD, Spence H, Iatridis J (1998) Mechanical modulation of intervertebral disc thickness in growing rat tails. J Spinal Dis 11(3):261–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stokes IA, Aronsson DD, Dimock AN, Cortright V, Beck S (2006) Endochondral growth in growth plates of three species at two anatomical locations modulated by mechanical compression and tension. J Orthop Res 24(6):1327–1334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stokes IAF, Windisch L (2006) Vertebral height growth predominates over intervertebral disc height growth in the adolescent spine. Spine 31(14):1600–1604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Videman T (1987) Connective tissue and immobilization. Key factors in musculoskeletal degeneration? Clin Orthop Relat Res 221:26–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Will RE, Stokes IA, Qiu X, Walker MR, Sanders JO (2009) Cobb angle progression in adolescent scoliosis begins at the intervertebral disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(25):2782–2786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wuertz K, Godburn K, MacLean JJ, Barbir A, Donnelly JS, Roughley PJ, Alini M, Iatridis JC (2009) In vivo remodeling of intervertebral discs in response to short- and long-term dynamic compression. J Orthop Res 27(9):1235–1242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian A. F. Stokes
    • 1
  • Carole McBride
    • 1
  • David D. Aronsson
    • 1
  • Peter J. Roughley
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics and RehabilitationUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  2. 2.Shriners HospitalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations