A porcine model for progressive thoracic scoliosis

Spine

Volumn 34, Issue 11, 2009, Pages

  Schwab, Frank ^a,b   Patel, Ashish ^a   Lafage, Virginie ^a   Farcy, Jean Pierre ^a  

^a NYU HOSPITAL FOR JOINT DISEASES   (United States)

^b Hospital for Joint Diseases ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Growth modulation; Nonfusion; Scoliosis model

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL MODEL; ARTICLE; BONE GROWTH; DISEASE COURSE; DISEASE MODEL; IDIOPATHIC SCOLIOSIS; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPINE MALFORMATION; SWINE;

EID: 67650288167     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a27156     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Dubousset J. Idiopathic scoliosis. Definition-pathology-classification - etiology. Bull Acad Natl Med 1999;183:699-704.
2. Dubousset J. Scoliosis and its pathophysiology: do we understand it? Spine 2001;26:1001.
3. Dumas R, Le Bras A, Champain N, et al. Validation of the relative 3D orientation of vertebrae reconstructed by biplanar radiography. Med Eng Phys 2004;26:415-22.
4. Graf H, Hecquet J, Dubousset J. 3-dimensional approach to spinal deformities: application to the study of the prognosis of pediatric scoliosis. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 1983;69:407-16.
5. Janicki JA, Poe-Kochert C, Armstrong DG, et al. A Comparison of the tho-racolumbosacral orthoses and providence orthosis in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: results using the new SRS inclusion and assessment criteria for bracing studies. J Pediatr Orthop 2007;27:369-74.
6. Lou E, Hill D, Raso J, et al. Prediction of brace treatment outcomes by monitoring brace usage. Stud Health Technol Inform 2006;123:239-44.
7. Haefeli M, Elfering A, Kilian R, et al. Nonoperative treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a 10- to 60-year follow-up with special reference to health-related quality of life. Spine 2006;31:355-66; discussion 67.
8. Raso VJ, Lou E, Hill DL, et al. Is the Boston brace mechanically effective in AIS? Stud Health Technol Inform 2002;91:378-82.
9. Montgomery F, Willner S, Appelgren G. Long-term follow-up of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated conservatively: an analysis of the clinical value of progression. J Pediatr Orthop 1990;10:48 -52.
10. Lowenstein JE, Matsumoto H, Vitale MG, et al. Coronal and sagittal plane correction in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison between all pedicle screw versus hybrid thoracic hook lumbar screw constructs. Spine 2007; 32:448-52.
11. Tanguay F,Mac-Thiong JM, de Guise JA, et al. Relation between the sagittal pelvic and lumbar spine geometries following surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2007;16:531- 6.
12. Aubin CE, Labelle H, Ciolofan OC. Variability of spinal instrumentation configurations in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2007;16: 57-64.
13. Storer SK, Vitale MG, Hyman JE, et al. Correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using thoracic pedicle screw fixation versus hook constructs. J Pediatr Orthop 2005;25:415-9.
14. Lenke LG. Lenke classification system of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: treatment recommendations. Instr Course Lect 2005;54:537-42.
15. Lenke LG, Betz RR, Haher TR, et al. Multisurgeon assessment of surgical decision-making in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: curve classification, operative approach, and fusion levels. Spine 2001;26:2347-53.
16. Braun JT, Akyuz E, Udall H, et al. Three-dimensional analysis of 2 fusionless scoliosis treatments: a flexible ligament tether versus a rigid-shape memory alloy staple. Spine 2006;31:262-8.
17. Braun JT, Ogilvie JW, Akyuz E, et al. Fusionless scoliosis correction using a shape memory alloy staple in the anterior thoracic spine of the immature goat. Spine 2004;29:1980-9.
18. Betz RR, Kim J, D'Andrea LP, et al. An innovative technique of vertebral body stapling for the treatment of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoli-osis: a feasibility, safety, and utility study. Spine 2003;28:S255-65.
19. Newton PO, Fricka KB, Lee SS, et al. Asymmetricalflexible tethering ofspine growth in an immature bovine model. Spine 2002;27:689-93.
20. Wall EJ, Bylski-Austrow DI, Kolata RJ, et al. Endoscopic mechanical spinal hemiepiphysiodesis modifies spine growth. Spine 2005;30:1148-53.
21. Nachlas IW, Borden JN. Experimental scoliosis; the role of the epiphysis. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1950;90:672-80.
22. Langenskiold, Michelsson JE. Experimental progressive scoliosis in the rabbit. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1961;43-B:116-20.
23. Tsuang YH, Yang RS, Chen PQ, et al. Experimental structural scoliosis in rabbits. J Formos Med Assoc 1992;91:886-90.
24. Hakkarainen S. Experimental scoliosis: production of structural scoliosis by immobilization of young rabbits in a scoliotic position. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 1981;192:1-57.
25. Braun JT, Ogilvie JW, Akyuz E, et al. Experimental scoliosis in an immature goat model: a method that creates idiopathic-type deformity with minimal violation of the spinal elements along the curve. Spine 2003;28:2198 -203.
26. Newton PO, Faro FD, Farnsworth CL, et al. Multilevel spinal growth modulation with an anterolateral flexible tether in an immature bovine model. Spine 2005;30:2608-13.
27. Smith RM, Dickson RA. Experimental structural scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1987;69:576-81.
28. Lowe TG, Wilson L, Chien JT, et al. A posterior tether for fusionless modulation of sagittal plane growth in a sheep model. Spine 2005;30:S69-74.
29. Akyuz E, Braun JT, Brown NA, et al. Static versus dynamic loading in the mechanical modulation of vertebral growth. Spine 2006;31:E952-8.
30. Braun JT, Ogilvie JW, Akyuz E, et al. Creation of an experimental idiopathic-type scoliosis in an immature goat model using a flexible posterior asymmetric tether. Spine 2006;31:1410-4.
31. Mente PL, Aronsson DD, Stokes IA, et al. Mechanical modulation of growth for the correction of vertebral wedge deformities. J Orthop Res 1999;17: 518-24.
32. Mente PL, Stokes IA, Spence H, et al. Progression of vertebral wedging in an asymmetrically loaded rat tail model. Spine 1997;22:1292-6.
33. Stokes IA, Spence H, Aronsson DD, et al. Mechanical modulation of vertebral body growth: implications for scoliosis progression. Spine 1996;21: 1162-7.