Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Growing Spine pp 43–48Cite as

Biomechanics in the Growing Spine

  • Chapter

Abstract

Early onset scoliosis (EOS) presents an extremely challenging clinical scenario. While bracing/casting may be utilized, these techniques may often fail or be contraindicated [20, 22]. Spinal fusion and instrumentation may be the gold standard for adolescent or adult deformity cor- rection, but is contraindicated in EOS since spinal arthrodesis may limit truncal growth and adversely affect pulmonary development/function [8, 16, 22]. Surgical treatment that allows both deformity correction and spinal growth has existed since Harrington’s initial study in 1962 [17]. He advocated instrumentation without fusion in patients 10 years of age or less. Moe et al. [29] used a “subcutaneous rod technique” specifi cally for children with remaining growth potential. However, this “growing rod” did not provide stable fixation, and the use of Luque rods followed to achieve better results [24]. This technique was also associated with poor outcomes related to autofusions that were thought to occur due to the requisite subperiosteal exposure [14, 27, 33].

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   239.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Acaroglu E, Yazici M, Alanay A, Surat A (2002) Three-dimensional evolution of scoliotic curve during instrumenta-tion without fusion in young children. J Pediatr Orthop 22:492–496

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Akbarnia BA, McCarthy R (1998) Pediatric Isola instrumen-tation without fusion for the treatment of progressive early onset scoliosis. In: McCarthy R (ed) Spinal instrumentation techniques. Scoliosis Research Society, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  3. Akbarnia BA, Marks D (2000) Instrumentation with limited arthrodesis for the treatment of progressive early-onset scoliosis. Spine: state of the art reviews, vol 14, pp 181–189

    Google Scholar 

  4. Akbarnia BA, Marks DS, Boachie-Adjei O et al (2005) Dual growing rod technique for the treatment of progressive earlyonset scoliosis: a multicenter study. Spine 30:S46–S57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Asher M (1997) Isola spinal instrumentation system for scoliosis. In: Bridwell K (ed) Textbook of spinal surgery. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, pp 569–609

    Google Scholar 

  6. Betz RR, Mulcahey MJ, Ramirez N et al (2008) Mortality and life-threatening events after vertical expandable prosthetic titanium rib surgery in children with hypoplastic chest wall deformity. J Pediatr Orthop 28(8):850–853

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Blakemore LC, Scoles PV, Poe-Kochert C, Thompson GH (2001) Submuscular Isola rod with or without limited apical fusion in the management of severe spinal deformities in young children: preliminary report. Spine 26:2044–2048

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Campbell RM Jr, Smith MD, Mayes TC et al (2003) The characteristics of thoracic insuffi ciency syndrome associated with fused ribs and congenital scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A:399–408

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Campbell RM Jr, Smith MD, Mayes TC et al (2004) The effect of opening wedge thoracostomy on thoracic insufficiency syndrome associated with fused ribs and congenital scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(8):1659–1674

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cil A, Yazici M, Daglioglu K et al (2005) The effect of pedicle screw placement with or without application of compression across the neurocentral cartilage on the morphology of the spinal canal and pedicle in immature pigs. Spine 30(11):1287–1293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dimeglio A, Bonnel F (1989) Growth of the spine. In: Raimondi AJ, Choux M, Di Rocco C (eds) Principles of pediatric neurosurgery. The pediatric spine, development and dysraphic state. Springer, New York, pp 39–83

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dimeglio A (2001) Growth in pediatric orthopaedics. J Pediatr Orthop 21(4):549–555

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dvorak M, MacDonald S, Gurr R et al (1993) An anatomic, radiographic, and biomechanical assessment of extrapedicular screw fixation in the thoracic spine. Spine 12:1689–1694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Eberle CF (1988) Failure of fi xation after segmental spinal instrumentation without arthrodesis in the management of paralytic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 70:696–703

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Emans JB, Caubet JF, Ordonez CL et al (2005) The treatment of spine and chest wall deformities with fused ribs by expansion thoracostomy and insertion of vertical expandable prosthetic titanium rib: growth of thoracic spine and improvement of lung volumes. Spine 30(17 Suppl):S58–S68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Emery JL, Mithal A (1960) The number of alveoli in the terminal respiratory unit of man during late intrauterine life and childhood. Arch Dis Child 35:544–547

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Harrington PR (1962) Treatment of scoliosis. Correction and internal fixation. Bone Joint Surg Am 44-A:591–610

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Heller JG, Shuster JK, Hutton WC (1999) Pedicle and transverse process screws of the upper thoracic spine. Biomechanical comparison of loads to failure. Spine 24:654–658

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Inceoglu S, Ferrara L, McLain RF (2004) Pedicle screw fi xation strength: pullout versus insertional torque. Spine J 4:513–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kennedy JD, Robertson CF, Olinsky A et al (1987) Pulmonary restrictive effect of bracing in mild idiopathic scoliosis. Thorax 42:959–961

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Klemme WR, Denis F, Winter RB, Lonstein JW, Koop SE (1997) Spinal instrumentation without fusion for progressive scoliosis in young children. J Pediatr Orthop 17:734–742

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kose N, Campbell RM (2004) Congenital scoliosis. Med Sci Monit 10:RA104–RA110

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lowe T, O’Brien M, Smith D et al (2002) Central and juxtaendplate vertebral body screw placement. A biomechanical analysis in a human cadaveric model. Spine 27:369–373

    Google Scholar 

  24. Luque ER (1982) Paralytic scoliosis in growing children. Clin Orthop Relat Res 163:202–209

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mahar AT, Brown DS, Oka RS, Newton PO (2006) Biomechanics of cantilever “plow” during anterior thoracic scoliosis correction. Spine J 6:572–576

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mahar A, Flippin M, Oka R et al (2007) Biomechanical differences in distraction forces and anterior column intradiscal pressures when using different constructs for the dual growing rod technique. 53rd Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society, San Diego, CA, Poster 1003

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mardjetko SM, Hammerberg KW, Lubicky JP et al (1992) The Luque trolley revisited. Review of nine cases requiring revision. Spine 17:582–589

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Mineiro J, Weinstein SL (2002) Subcutaneous rodding for progressive spinal curvatures: early results. J Pediatr Orthop 22:290–295

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Moe JH, Kharrat K, Winter RB, Cummine JL (1984) Harrington instrumentation without fusion plus external orthotic support for the treatment of diffi cult curvature problems in young children. Clin Orthop Relat Res 185:35–45

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mohamad F, Oka R, Mahar A, Wedemeyer M, Newton P (2006) Biomechanical comparison of the screw-bone interface: optimization of 1 and 2 screw constructs by varying screw diameter. Spine 31:E535–E539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Morgenstern W, Ferguson SJ, Berey S et al (2003) Posterior thoracic extrapedicular fixation: a biomechanical study. Spine 28:1829–1835

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ogon M, Haid C, Krismer M et al (1996) Comparison between single-screw and triangulated, double-screw fixation in anterior spine surgery. A biomechanical test. Spine 21:2728–2734

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Sengupta D, Freeman B, Grevitt M et al (2002) Long term follow-up of the Luque trolly growing-rod construct in the surgical treatment of early onset idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis Research Society 37th Annual Meeting. Seattle, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  34. Snyder BD, Snaltz I, Hall JE et al (1995) Predicting the integrity of vertebral bone screw fixation in anterior spinal instrumentation. Spine 20:1568–1574

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Suk SI, Kim WJ, Lee SM et al (2001) Thoracic pedicle screw fixation in spinal deformities: are they really safe? Spine 26(18):2049–2057

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Thompson GH, Akbarnia BA, Kostial P et al (2005) Comparison of single and dual growing rod techniques followed through defi nitive surgery: a preliminary study. Spine 30:2039–2044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. White KK, Oka R, Mahar AT, Lowry A, Garfin SR (2006) Pullout strength of thoracic pedicle screw instrumentation: comparison of the transpedicular and extrapedicular techniques. Spine 31:E355–E358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Yazici M, Pekmezci M, Cil A et al (2006) The effect of pedicle expansion on pedicle morphology and biomechanical stability in the immature porcine spine. Spine 31(22):E826–E829

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, 92103, USA

    Andrew T. Mahar

Authors
  1. Andrew T. Mahar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew T. Mahar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic Surgery, San Diego Medical Director, San Diego Center for Spinal Disorders, University of California, 4130 La Jolla, Village Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA

    Behrooz A. Akbarnia MD

  2. Orthopaedic Surgery Department of Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Hacettepe University, 06100 Sihhiye, Ankara, Turkey

    Muharrem Yazici MD

  3. Pediatric Orthopaedics Rainbow Babies & Children’s Hospital, Case Western Reserve University, 11000 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106-6003, USA

    George H. Thompson MD

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mahar, A.T. (2011). Biomechanics in the Growing Spine. In: Akbarnia, B.A., Yazici, M., Thompson, G.H. (eds) The Growing Spine. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85207-0_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85207-0_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-85206-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-85207-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation