Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 27, Issue 9, pp 2262–2271 | Cite as

The influence of spinal fusion length on proximal junction biomechanics: a parametric computational study

  • Dominika Ignasiak
  • Tobias Peteler
  • Tamás F. Fekete
  • Daniel Haschtmann
  • Stephen J. Ferguson
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Proximal junctional kyphosis and failure are frequent complications in adult spinal deformity surgery with long fusion constructs. The aim of this study was to assess the biomechanics of the proximal segment for fusions of various lengths.

Methods

A previously established musculoskeletal model of thoracolumbar spine was used to simulate full-range flexion task for fusions (modeled by introduction of rigid constraints) with lower instrumented vertebrae at L5 or S1 and upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) at any level above, up to T2. Inverse dynamics simulations with force-dependent kinematics were performed for gradually increasing spinal flexion in order to predict global and segmental range of flexion, maximum passive moment, segmental compression and shear forces, which were compared to the uninstrumented case.

Results

For long fusions, with the UIV at T11 or higher, the model predicted an increase in segmental flexion (by 33–860%, or 1.6°–4.7°) and passive moment (by 39–1370%, or 13–31 Nm) at the proximal junction—generally increasing with fusion length. While the maximum shear force was 57–239% (135–283 N) higher for the proximal junction at the upper thorax (UIV at T6 or above), the compression forces were reduced by up to 44% (375 N).

Conclusions

The length of the instrumentation has an important effect on the proximal segment biomechanics. Despite the limitations of the current model, musculoskeletal modeling appears to be a promising and versatile method to support planning of spinal instrumentation surgeries in the future.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords

Spinal fusion Proximal junctional failure Biomechanics Musculoskeletal model Thoracolumbar spine 

Notes

Funding

This study has been supported by a research grant from Mäxi Foundation, Switzerland.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

S. J. Ferguson received research project support from DePuy Johnson & Johnson. D. Ignasiak, T. Peteler, T. F. Fekete and Daniel Haschtmann declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

586_2018_5700_MOESM1_ESM.docx (528 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 528 kb)
586_2018_5700_MOESM2_ESM.pptx (8.4 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (PPTX 8586 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hart RA, McCarthy I, Ames CP, Shaffrey CI, Hamilton DK, Hostin R (2013) Proximal junctional kyphosis and proximal junctional failure. Neurosurg Clin N Am 24:213–218.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nec.2013.01.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arlet V, Aebi M (2013) Junctional spinal disorders in operated adult spinal deformities: present understanding and future perspectives. Eur Spine J 22(Suppl 2):S276–S295.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2676-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smith MW, Annis P, Lawrence BD, Daubs MD, Brodke DS (2015) Acute proximal junctional failure in patients with preoperative sagittal imbalance. Spine J 15:2142–2148.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.05.028 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Annis P, Lawrence BD, Spiker WR, Zhang Y, Chen W, Daubs MD, Brodke DS (2014) Predictive factors for acute proximal junctional failure after adult deformity surgery with upper instrumented vertebrae in the thoracolumbar spine. Evid Based Spine Care J 5:160–162.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1386755 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hart R, McCarthy I, O’Brien M, Bess S, Line B, Adjei OB, Burton D, Gupta M, Ames C, Deviren V, Kebaish K, Shaffrey C, Wood K, Hostin R, International Spine Study G (2013) Identification of decision criteria for revision surgery among patients with proximal junctional failure after surgical treatment of spinal deformity. Spine 38:E1223–E1227.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31829fedde CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hostin R, McCarthy I, O’Brien M, Bess S, Line B, Boachie-Adjei O, Burton D, Gupta M, Ames C, Deviren V, Kebaish K, Shaffrey C, Wood K, Hart R, International Spine Study G (2013) Incidence, mode, and location of acute proximal junctional failures after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine 38:1008–1015.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e318271319c CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nicholls FH, Bae J, Theologis AA, Eksi MS, Ames CP, Berven SH, Burch S, Tay BK, Deviren V (2017) Factors associated with the development of and revision for proximal junctional kyphosis in 440 consecutive adult spinal deformity patients. Spine 42:1693–1698.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000002209 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lange T, Schmoelz W, Gosheger G, Eichinger M, Heinrichs CH, Boevingloh AS, Schulte TL (2017) Is a gradual reduction of stiffness on top of posterior instrumentation possible with a suitable proximal implant? A biomechanical study. Spine J 17:1148–1155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.03.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bess S, Harris JE, Turner AW, LaFage V, Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Schwab FJ, Haid RW Jr (2017) The effect of posterior polyester tethers on the biomechanics of proximal junctional kyphosis: a finite element analysis. J Neurosurg Spine 26:125–133.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.6.SPINE151477 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim HJ, Lenke LG, Shaffrey CI, Van Alstyne EM, Skelly AC (2012) Proximal junctional kyphosis as a distinct form of adjacent segment pathology after spinal deformity surgery: a systematic review. Spine 37:S144–S164.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826d611b CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scheer JK, Osorio JA, Smith JS, Schwab F, Lafage V, Hart RA, Bess S, Line B, Diebo BG, Protopsaltis TS, Jain A, Ailon T, Burton DC, Shaffrey CI, Klineberg E, Ames CP, and the International Spine Study G (2016) Development of validated computer based pre-operative predictive model for proximal junction failure (PJF) or clinically significant PJK with 86% accuracy based on 510 ASD patients with 2-year follow-up. Spine.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001598 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Rhim S, Kim YW (2007) Is the T9, T11, or L1 the more reliable proximal level after adult lumbar or lumbosacral instrumented fusion to L5 or S1? Spine 32:2653–2661.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815a5a9d CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Malakoutian M, Volkheimer D, Street J, Dvorak MF, Wilke HJ, Oxland TR (2015) Do in vivo kinematic studies provide insight into adjacent segment degeneration? A qualitative systematic literature review. Eur Spine J 24:1865–1881.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3992-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Volkheimer D, Malakoutian M, Oxland TR, Wilke HJ (2015) Limitations of current in vitro test protocols for investigation of instrumented adjacent segment biomechanics: critical analysis of the literature. Eur Spine J 24:1882–1892.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4040-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cammarata M, Aubin CE, Wang X, Mac-Thiong JM (2014) Biomechanical risk factors for proximal junctional kyphosis: a detailed numerical analysis of surgical instrumentation variables. Spine 39:E500–E507.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000222 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fukui H, Sakamoto J, Murakami H, Kawahara N, Oda J, Tomita K, Higaki H (2008) Biomechanical analysis of influence of spinal fixation on intervertebral joint force by using musculoskeletal model. In: Lim CT, Goh JCH (eds) ICBME. pp 1712–1715Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Park WM, Choi DK, Kim K, Kim YJ, Kim YH (2015) Biomechanical effects of fusion levels on the risk of proximal junctional failure and kyphosis in lumbar spinal fusion surgery. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 30:1162–1169.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Magerl F, Aebi M, Gertzbein SD, Harms J, Nazarian S (1994) A comprehensive classification of thoracic and lumbar injuries. Eur Spine J 3:184–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Le Huec JC, Richards J, Tsoupras A, Price R, Leglise A, Faundez AA (2017) The mechanism in junctional failure of thoraco-lumbar fusions. Part I: biomechanical analysis of mechanisms responsible of vertebral overstress and description of the cervical inclination angle (CIA). Eur Spine J.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5425-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gallagher S, Marras WS, Litsky AS, Burr D (2006) An exploratory study of loading and morphometric factors associated with specific failure modes in fatigue testing of lumbar motion segments. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 21:228–234.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Malakoutian M, Street J, Wilke H-J, Stavness I, Dvorak M, Fels S, Oxland T (2016) Role of muscle damage on loading at the level adjacent to a lumbar spine fusion: a biomechanical analysis. Eur Spine J 25:2929–2937.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4686-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Briggs AM, van Dieen JH, Wrigley TV, Greig AM, Phillips B, Lo SK, Bennell KL (2007) Thoracic kyphosis affects spinal loads and trunk muscle force. Phys Ther 87:595–607.  https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20060119 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Briggs AM, Wrigley TV, van Dieen JH, Phillips B, Lo SK, Greig AM, Bennell KL (2006) The effect of osteoporotic vertebral fracture on predicted spinal loads in vivo. Eur Spine J 15:1785–1795.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0158-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ignasiak D, Dendorfer S, Ferguson SJ (2016) Thoracolumbar spine model with articulated ribcage for the prediction of dynamic spinal loading. J Biomech 49:959–966.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.10.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ignasiak D, Ferguson SJ, Arjmand N (2016) A rigid thorax assumption affects model loading predictions at the upper but not lower lumbar levels. J Biomech 49:3074–3078.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.07.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Busscher I, van der Veen AJ, van Dieen JH, Kingma I, Verkerke GJ, Veldhuizen AG (2010) In vitro biomechanical characteristics of the spine: a comparison between human and porcine spinal segments. Spine 35:E35–E42.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b21885 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Andersen MS, Damsgaard M, Rasmussen J (2011) Force-dependent kinematics: a new analysis method for non-conforming joints. In: XIII international symposium on computer simulation in biomechanics. Leuven, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tafazzol A, Arjmand N, Shirazi-Adl A, Parnianpour M (2014) Lumbopelvic rhythm during forward and backward sagittal trunk rotations: combined in vivo measurement with inertial tracking device and biomechanical modeling. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 29:7–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2013.10.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Damsgaard M, Rasmussen J, Christensen ST, Surma E, de Zee M (2006) Analysis of musculoskeletal systems in the AnyBody Modeling System. Simul Model Pract Theory 14:1100–1111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2006.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Erdemir A, McLean S, Herzog W, van den Bogert AJ (2007) Model-based estimation of muscle forces exerted during movements. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 22:131–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shufflebarger H, Suk SI, Mardjetko S (2006) Debate: determining the upper instrumented vertebra in the management of adult degenerative scoliosis: stopping at T10 versus L1. Spine 31:S185–S194.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000232811.08673.03 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chow DH, Luk KD, Evans JH, Leong JC (1996) Effects of short anterior lumbar interbody fusion on biomechanics of neighboring unfused segments. Spine 21:549–555CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nagata H, Schendel MJ, Transfeldt EE, Lewis JL (1993) The effects of immobilization of long segments of the spine on the adjacent and distal facet force and lumbosacral motion. Spine 18:2471–2479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bastian L, Lange U, Knop C, Tusch G, Blauth M (2001) Evaluation of the mobility of adjacent segments after posterior thoracolumbar fixation: a biomechanical study. Eur Spine J 10:295–300.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s005860100278 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Aquarius R, Homminga J, Verdonschot N, Tanck E (2011) The fracture risk of adjacent vertebrae is increased by the changed loading direction after a wedge fracture. Spine 36:E408–E412.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181f0f726 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Buckley JM, Kuo CC, Cheng LC, Loo K, Motherway J, Slyfield C, Deviren V, Ames C (2009) Relative strength of thoracic vertebrae in axial compression versus flexion. Spine J 9:478–485.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2009.02.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jamshidnejad S, Arjmand N (2015) Variations in trunk muscle activities and spinal loads following posterior lumbar surgery: a combined in vivo and modeling investigation. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 30:1036–1042.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.09.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhang X, Chen Z, Wang L, Yang W, Li D, Jin Z (2015) Prediction of hip joint load and translation using musculoskeletal modelling with force-dependent kinematics and experimental validation. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 229:477–490.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0954411915589115 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Biomechanics, ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Schulthess ClinicZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations