Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of vertebral body tethering on spine range of motion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a pilot study

  • Case Series
  • Published:
Spine Deformity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Posterior spinal fusion and instrumentation (PSF) and vertebral body tethering (VBT) are corrective surgical techniques used in treating adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Comparing the preservation of spine range of motion (ROM) following PSF and VBT for treatment of AIS has yet to be explored. The purpose of this work was to retrospectively compare global spine ROM in adolescents (9–18 years of age) without spine deformity, adolescents with untreated AIS, adolescents having undergone PSF, and adolescents having undergone VBT to gain insight on the effect of VBT on spine motion.

Methods

Twenty participants were recruited into four groups including Control (n = 6), untreated AIS (n = 5), post-operative PSF (n = 4) and post-operative VBT (n = 5). Three-dimensional kinematics of the spine were collected and analyzed using an intersegmental spine model during constrained forward flexion, right–left lateral bending, and right–left axial twist movements.

Results

The PSF group displayed significantly lower spine ROM than the two non-operative groups during thoracic and total left axial twist (p ≤ 0.048), whereas thoracic and total ROM during right–left lateral bending is almost equally lower in the PSF (p ≤ 0.03) and VBT (p ≤ 0.01) groups when compared to the Control and AIS groups.

Conclusion

These results suggest some preservation of spine motion in the transverse plane following VBT. This study provides initial evidence of some potential preservation of spine ROM following VBT; however, further prospective investigation of VBT is needed to assess and confirm these hypotheses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nishida M, Nagura T, Fujita N et al (2017) Position of the major curve influences asymmetrical trunk kinematics during gait in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Gait Posture 51:142–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Burwell RG (2003) Aetiology of idiopathic scoliosis: current concepts. Pediatr Rehabil 6(3–4):137–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/13638490310001642757

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Konieczny MR, Senyurt H, Krauspe R (2013) Epidemiology of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Child Orthop 7(1):3–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11832-012-0457-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Padhye K, Soroceanu A, Russell D et al (2018) Thoracoscopic anterior instrumentation and fusion as a treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review of the literature. Spine Deform 6(4):384–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2017.12.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Danielsson AJ, Wiklund I, Pehrsson K et al (2001) Health-related quality of life in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a matched follow-up at least 20 years after treatment with brace or surgery. Eur Spine J 10(4):278–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s005860100309

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. De la Garza RR, Goodwin CR, Abu-Bonsrah N et al (2016) Patient and operative factors associated with complications following adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery: an analysis of 36,335 patients from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. J Neurosurg Pediatr 18(6):730–736. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.6.PEDS16200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Engsberg JR, Lenke LG, Reitenbach AK et al (2002) Prospective evaluation of trunk range of motion in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis undergoing spinal fusion surgery. Spine J 27(12):1346–1354. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200206150-00018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wilk B, Karol LA, Johnston CE et al (2006) The effect of scoliosis fusion on spinal motion: a comparison of fused and nonfused patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine J 31(3):309–314. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000197168.11815.ec

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Courvoisier A, Eid A, Bourgeois E et al (2015) Growth tethering devices for idiopathic scoliosis. Expert Rev Med Devices 12(4):449–456. https://doi.org/10.1586/17434440.2015.1052745

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Samdani AF, Ames RJ, Kimball JS et al (2015) Anterior vertebral body tethering for immature adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: one-year results on the first 32 patients. Eur Spine J 24(7):1533–1539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3706-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Aubin CÉ, Clin J, Rawlinson J (2018) Biomechanical simulations of costo-vertebral and anterior vertebral body tethers for the fusionless treatment of pediatric scoliosis. J Orthop Res 36(1):254–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.23648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cobetto N, Parent S, Aubin CE (2018) 3D correction over 2 years with anterior vertebral body growth modulation: a finite element analysis of screw positioning, cable tensioning and postoperative functional activities. Clin Biomech 51:26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2017.11.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Newton PO, Farnsworth CL, Faro FD et al (2008) Spinal growth modulation with an anterolateral flexible tether in an immature bovine model: disc health and motion preservation. Spine J 33(7):24–733. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816950a0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Buyuk AF, Milbrandt TA, Mathew SE et al (2021) Measurable thoracic motion remains at 1 year following anterior vertebral body tethering, with sagittal motion greater than coronal motion. JBJS 103(24):2299–2305. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.20.01533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nicolini LF, Kobbe P, Seggewiß J et al (2021) Motion preservation surgery for scoliosis with a vertebral body tethering system: a biomechanical study. Eur Spine J 31(4):1013–1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-07035-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zwambag DP, Beaudette SM, Gregory DE et al (2018) Development of a novel technique to record 3D intersegmental angular kinematics during dynamic spine movements. Ann Biomed Eng 46(2):298–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-017-1970-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Galvis S, Burton D, Barnds B et al (2016) The effect of scoliotic deformity on spine kinematics in adolescents. Scoliosis Spinal Disord 11(1):42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13013-016-0103-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Graham RB, Oikawa LY, Ross GB (2014) Comparing the local dynamic stability of trunk movements between varsity athletes with and without non-specific low back pain. J Biomech 47(6):1459–1464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.01.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Granata KP, England SA (2006) Stability of dynamic trunk movement. Spine J 31(10):E271–E276. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000216445.28943.d1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pearcy MJ (1985) Stereo radiography of lumbar spine motion. Acta Orthop Scand 56(sup212):1–45. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453678509154154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Adams MA, Hutton WC (1986) Has the lumbar spine a margin of safety in forward bending? Clin Biomech 1(1):3–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0268-0033(86)90028-8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Morita D, Yukawa Y, Nakashima H et al (2014) Range of motion of thoracic spine in sagittal plane. Eur Spine J 23(3):673–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3361-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Newton PO, Upasani VV, Farnsworth CL, Oka R, Chambers RC, Dwek J, Kim JR, Perry A, Mahar AT (2008) Spinal growth modulation with use of a tether in an immature porcine model. JBJS 90(12):2695–2706. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.01424

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Growth Award and Department of Surgery Award, as well as the University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine Junior Faculty Research Grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Human Kinetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, 200 Lees Avenue, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada

    Mina Maksimovic & Ryan B. Graham

  2. Department of Kinesiology, Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St. Catharines, ON, L2S 3A1, Canada

    Shawn M. Beaudette

  3. Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, 401 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L1, Canada

    Holly Livock, Andrew Tice, James Jarvis & Kevin Smit

Authors
  1. Mina Maksimovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shawn M. Beaudette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Holly Livock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew Tice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. James Jarvis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kevin Smit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ryan B. Graham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MM, SB, HL, AT, JJ, KS, RG; Contribution to conception, design, analysis, etc.; Drafted/critically revised work; Approved work for publishing; Agree to be accountable for all aspects of work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan B. Graham.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts to declare.

Ethics approval

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Board at CHEO (19/62X) and at the University of Ottawa (H-07–19-4773). All participants provided their written informed assent and/or consent.

Consent to participate

Written informed consent and/or assent was obtained from all legal guardians/parents and/or the individual participants in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 829 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maksimovic, M., Beaudette, S.M., Livock, H. et al. The effect of vertebral body tethering on spine range of motion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a pilot study. Spine Deform 11, 123–131 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-022-00578-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-022-00578-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation