Biomechanical risk factors for proximal junctional kyphosis: A detailed numerical analysis of surgical instrumentation variables

Spine

Volumn 39, Issue 8, 2014, Pages E500-E507

  Cammarata, Marco ^a,b   Aubin, Carl Éric ^a,b   Wang, Xiaoyu ^a,c   Mac Thiong, Jean Marc ^b,c  

^a ÉCOLE POLYTECHNIQUE DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b HÔPITAL DU SACRÉ COEUR DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Adult scoliosis; Biomechanical modeling; Proximal junctional kyphosis; Spinal deformity; Surgical simulation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COBB ANGLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; FORCE; HUMAN; KYPHOSIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PEDICLE SCREW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROXIMAL JUNCTIONAL KYPHOSIS; RISK FACTOR; SPINE MOBILITY; THORACIC VERTEBRA; TRANSVERSE PROCESS; YOUNG ADULT; AGED; BONE SCREW; COMPARATIVE STUDY; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PROSTHESIS; RADIOGRAPHY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCOLIOSIS; SPINE FUSION; SURGERY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VERTEBRA;

AGED; BIOMECHANICAL PHENOMENA; BONE SCREWS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; KYPHOSIS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MIDDLE AGED; NUMERICAL ANALYSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SCOLIOSIS; SPINAL FUSION; THORACIC VERTEBRAE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84916601228     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000222     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Glattes RC, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al. Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity following long instrumented posterior spinal fusion: incidence, outcomes, and risk factor analysis. Spine 2005; 30: 1643-9.
2. Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al. Proximal junctional kypho-sis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis following segmental posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion: minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine 2005; 30: 2045-50.
3. Yagi M, King AB, Boachie-Adjei O. Incidence, risk factors, and natural course of proximal junctional kyphosis: surgical outcomes review of adult idiopathic scoliosis. Minimum 5 years of follow-up. Spine 2012; 37: 1479-89.
4. Mendoza-Lattes S, Ries Z, Gao Y, et al. Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult reconstructive spine surgery results from incomplete restoration of the lumbar lordosis relative to the magnitude of the thoracic kyphosis. Iowa Orthop J 2011; 31: 199-206.
5. Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al. Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity after segmental posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion: minimum five-year follow-up. Spine 2008; 33: 2179-84.
6. Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Proximal junctional kypho-sis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis after 3 different types of posterior segmental spinal instrumentation and fusions: incidence and risk factor analysis of 410 cases. Spine 2007; 32: 2731-8.
7. Rhee JM, Bridwell KH, Won DS, et al. Sagittal plane analysis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: the effect of anterior versus posterior instrumentation. Spine 2002; 27: 2350-6.
8. Denis F, Sun EC, Winter RB. Incidence and risk factors for proximal and distal junctional kyphosis following surgical treatment for Scheuermann kyphosis: minimum five-year follow-up. Spine 2009; 34: E729-E34.
9. Schairer WW, Carrer A, Deviren V, et al. Hospital readmission after spine fusion for adult spinal deformity. Spine 2013; 38: 1681-9.
10. Helgeson MD, Shah SA, Newton PO, et al. Evaluation of proximal junctional kyphosis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis following pedicle screw, hook, or hybrid instrumentation. Spine 2010; 35: 177-81.
11. Blondel B, Wickman AM, Apazidis A, et al. Selection of fusion levels in adults with spinal deformity: an update. Spine J 2013; 13: 464-74.
12. Watanabe K, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Proximal junctional vertebral fracture in adults after spinal deformity surgery using pedicle screw constructs: analysis of morphological features. Spine 2010; 35: 138-45.
13. DeWald CJ, Stanley T. Instrumentation-related complications of multilevel fusions for adult spinal deformity patients over age 65: surgical considerations and treatment options in patients with poor bone quality. Spine 2006; 31: S144-51.
14. Wang X, Aubin C-É, Crandall D, et al. Biomechanical modeling and analysis of a direct incremental segmental translation system for the instrumentation of scoliotic deformities. Clin Biomech 2011; 26: 548-55.
15. Wang X, Aubin C-É, Crandall D, et al. Biomechanical comparison of force levels in spinal instrumentation using monoaxial versus multi degree of freedom postloading pedicle screws. Spine 2011; 36: E95-104.
16. Cheriet F, Laporte C, Kadoury S, et al. A novel system for the 3-D reconstruction of the human spine and rib cage from biplanar X-ray images. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2007; 54: 1356-8.
17. Delorme S, Petit Y, de Guise JA, et al. Assessment of the 3-D recon-struction and high-resolution geometrical modeling of the human skeletal trunk from 2-D radiographic images. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2003; 50: 989-98.
18. Aubin C-É, Bellefleur C, Joncas J, et al. Reliability and accuracy analysis of a new semiautomatic radiographic measurement software in adult scoliosis. Spine 2011; 36: E780-90.
19. Labelle H, Dansereau J, Bellefleur C, et al. Variability of geometric measurements from three-dimensional reconstructions of scoliotic spines and rib cages. Eur Spine J 1995; 4: 88-94.
20. Aubin C-É, Labelle H, Chevrefils C, et al. Preoperative planning simulator for spinal deformity surgeries. Spine 2008; 33: 2143-52.
21. Panjabi MM, Brand RA, White AA. Three-dimensional flexibility and stiffness properties of the human thoracic spine. J Biomech 1976; 9: 185-92.
22. Gardner-Morse MG, Laible JP, Stokes I. Incorporation of spinal flexibility measurements into finite element analysis. J Biomech Eng 1990; 112: 481-3.
23. Petit Y, Aubin C-É, Labelle H. Patient-specific mechanical properties of a flexible multi-body model of the scoliotic spine. Med Biol Eng Comput 2004; 42: 55-60.
24. Pearsall DJ, Reid JG, Livingston LA. Segmental inertial parameters of the human trunk as determined from computed tomography. Ann Biomed Eng 1996; 24: 198-210.
25. Kiefer A, Parnianpour M, Shirazi-Adl A. Stability of the human spine in neutral postures. Eur Spine J 1997; 6: 45-53.
26. Cidambi KR, Glaser DA, Bastrom TP, et al. Postoperative changes in spinal rod contour in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: an in vivo deformation study. Spine 2012; 37: 1566-72.
27. Boudreault F. Comportement Mécanique Des Unités Fonctionelles: T3/74, T7/T8 et T12/L1 Saines et Lésées Du Rachis Humain. Department of Mechanical Engineering [master thesis]. Montreal, Canada: École Polytechnique de Montréal; 1994.
28. Hart RA, McCarthy I, Ames CP, et al. Proximal junctional kypho-sis and proximal junctional failure. Spinal Deformity Surgery, an Issue of Neurosurgery Clinics. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013: 124.
29. Anderson AL, McIff TE, Asher MA, et al. The effect of posterior thoracic spine anatomical structures on motion segment flexion stiffness. Spine 2009; 34: 441-6.
30. Hassanzadeh H, Gupta S, Jain A, et al. Type of anchor at the proximal fusion level has a significant effect on the incidence of proximal junctional kyphosis and outcome in adults after long posterior spinal fusion. Spine Deformity 2013; 1: 299-305.
31. Glos D, Thawrani D, Coombs M, et al. Transverse process hooks at upper instrumented vertebra provide a more gradual transition to normal motion compared to pedicle screws in long posterior spinal fusion constructs [poster]. Available at: http://prgmobileapps.com/ors2013/mobilesite/posterinfo.php?author = David%20Glos. Accessed October 27, 2013.
32. Cahill PJ, Wang W, Asghar J, et al. The use of a transition rod may prevent proximal junctional kyphosis in the thoracic spine after scoliosis surgery: a finite element analysis. Spine 2012; 37: E687-95.
33. Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al. An analysis of sagittal spinal alignment following long adult lumbar instrumentation and fusion to L5 or S1: can we predict ideal lumbar lordosis? Spine 2006; 31: 2343-52.
34. Kim J-H, Kim S-S, Suk S-I. Incidence of proximal adjacent failure in adult lumbar deformity correction based on proximal fusion level. Asian Spine J 2007; 1: 19-26.
35. Adams MA, Bogduk N, Burton K, et al. Growth and ageing of the lumbar spine. The Biomechanics of Back Pain. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2006: 98.
36. Middleditch A, Oliver J. Structure of the vertebral column. Functional Anatomy of the Spine. Butterworth-Heinemann; 2005: 6.
37. Heary RF, Albert TJ. Scheuermann's kyphosis. Spinal Deformities: The Essentials. New York, NY: Thieme; 2007: 194.
38. Hilibrand AS, Tannenbaum DA, Graziano GP, et al. The sagittal alignment of the cervical spine in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 1995; 15: 627-32.
39. Lee GA, Betz RR, Clements III DH, et al. Proximal kyphosis after posterior spinal fusion in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 1999; 24: 795-9.
40. Halvorson TL, Kelley LA, Thomas KA, et al. Effects of bone mineral density on pedicle screw fixation. Spine 1994; 19: 2415-20.
41. Hirano T, Hasegawa K, Washio T, et al. Fracture risk during pedicle screw insertion in osteoporotic spine. J Spinal Disord 1998; 11: 493-7.
42. Ha Y, Maruo K, Racine L, et al. Proximal junctional kyphosis and clinical outcomes in adult spinal deformity surgery with fusion from the thoracic spine to the sacrum: a comparison of proximal and distal upper instrumented vertebrae. J Neurosurg Spine 2013; 19: 360-9.