Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of double rods and interbody cages on range of motion and rod stress after spinopelvic instrumentation: a finite element study

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare instrumentation configurations consisting of bilateral single or double rods and additional interbody cages (IBCs) at different levels in terms of Range of Motion (ROM) and distribution of von Mises stress in rods.

Methods

A previously validated L1-pelvis finite element model was used and instrumented with configurations consisting of single or double bilateral rods and IBCs at multiple levels. Pure moments of 7.5 N.m were applied to L1 in main directions in addition to a follower load of 280 N. Global, segmental ROM and distribution of von Mises stress in rods were studied.

Results

All configurations reduced segmental and global ROM from 50 to 100% compared to the intact spine. Addition of IBCs slightly increased ROM at levels adjacent to the IBC placement. The simple rod configuration presented the highest von Mises stress (457 MPa) in principal rods at L5-S1 in flexion. Doubling rods and IBC placement reduced this value and shifted the location of maximum von Mises stress to other regions. Among studied configurations, double rods with IBCs at all levels (L2-S1) showed the lowest ROM. Maximal von Mises stresses in secondary rods were lower in comparison to main rods.

Conclusions

Double rods and IBCs reduced global and segmental ROM as well as von Mises stress in rods. The results suggest a possible benefit in using both strategies to minimize pseudarthrosis and instrumentation failure. However, increased ROM in adjacent levels and the shift of maximal von Mises stress to adjacent areas might cause complications elsewhere.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kebaish KM, Neubauer PR, Voros GD et al (2011) Scoliosis in adults aged forty years and older: prevalence and relationship to age, race, and gender. Spine Phila Pa 1976 36:731–736. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e9f120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lertudomphonwanit T, Kelly MP, Bridwell KH et al (2018) Rod fracture in adult spinal deformity surgery fused to the sacrum: prevalence, risk factors, and impact on health-related quality of life in 526 patients. Spine J 18:1612–1624. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SPINEE.2018.02.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Charles YP, Ntilikina Y (2020) Scoliosis surgery in adulthood: what challenges for what outcome? Ann Transl Med 8:34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Godzik J, Hlubek RJ, Newcomb AGUS et al (2019) Supplemental rods are needed to maximally reduce rod strain across the lumbosacral junction with TLIF but not ALIF in long constructs. Spine J 19:1121–1131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2019.01.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ntilikina Y, Charles YP, Persohn S, Skalli W (2020) Influence of double rods and interbody cages on quasistatic range of motion of the spine after lumbopelvic instrumentation. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06594-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Charosky S, Moreno P, Maxy P (2014) Instability and instrumentation failures after a PSO: a finite element analysis. Eur Spine J 23:2340–2349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3295-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Luca A, Ottardi C, Lovi A et al (2017) Anterior support reduces the stresses on the posterior instrumentation after pedicle subtraction osteotomy: a finite-element study. Eur Spine J 26:450–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5084-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Seyed Vosoughi A, Joukar A, Kiapour A et al (2019) Optimal satellite rod constructs to mitigate rod failure following pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO): a finite element study. Spine J 19:931–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.11.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Berjano P, Xu M, Damilano M et al (2019) Supplementary delta-rod configurations provide superior stiffness and reduced rod stress compared to traditional multiple-rod configurations after pedicle subtraction osteotomy: a finite element study. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06012-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Luca A, Ottardi C, Sasso M et al (2017) Instrumentation failure following pedicle subtraction osteotomy: the role of rod material, diameter, and multi-rod constructs. Eur Spine J 26:764–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4859-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Leszczynski A, Meyer F, Charles Y-P et al (2021) Development of a flexible instrumented lumbar spine finite element model and comparison with in-vitro experiments. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2021.1948021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J (2005) Classification of the normal variation in the sagittal alignment of the human lumbar spine and pelvis in the standing position. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:346–353. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000152379.54463.65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. ASTM F1537 - 20 Standard Specification for Wrought Cobalt-28Chromium-6Molybdenum Alloys for Surgical Implants (UNS R31537, UNS R31538, and UNS R31539)

  14. ASTM F136 - 13 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications (UNS R56401)

  15. Blinded (2020) Validation of an instrumented lumbar spine finite element model. Under Rev

  16. Rohlmann A, Neller S, Claes L et al (2001) Influence of a follower load on intradiscal pressure and intersegmental rotation of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:E557–E561. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200112150-00014

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Dahl BT, Harris JA, Gudipally M et al (2017) Kinematic efficacy of supplemental anterior lumbar interbody fusion at lumbosacral levels in thoracolumbosacral deformity correction with and without pedicle subtraction osteotomy at L3: an in vitro cadaveric study. Eur Spine J 26:2773–2781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5222-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Smith JS, Shaffrey E, Klineberg E et al (2014) Prospective multicenter assessment of risk factors for rod fracture following surgery for adult spinal deformity. J Neurosurg Spine 21:994–1003. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.9.SPINE131176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hyun S-J, Lenke LG, Kim Y-C et al (2014) Comparison of standard 2-rod constructs to multiple-rod constructs for fixation across 3-column spinal osteotomies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:1899–904. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hallager DW, Gehrchen M, Dahl B et al (2016) Use of supplemental short pre-contoured accessory rods and cobalt chrome alloy posterior rods reduces primary rod strain and range of motion across the pedicle subtraction osteotomy level: an in vitro biomechanical study. Spine (Phila Pa) 41:E388-95. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. La Barbera L, Brayda-Bruno M, Liebsch C et al (2018) Biomechanical advantages of supplemental accessory and satellite rods with and without interbody cages implantation for the stabilization of pedicle subtraction osteotomy. Eur Spine J 27:2357–2366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5623-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. La Barbera L, Wilke HJ, Liebsch C et al (2020) Biomechanical in vitro comparison between anterior column realignment and pedicle subtraction osteotomy for severe sagittal imbalance correction. Eur Spine J 29:36–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06087-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Januszewski J, Beckman J, Harris J et al (2017) Biomechanical study of rod stress after pedicle subtraction osteotomy versus anterior column reconstruction: a finite element study. Surg Neurol Int 8:207. https://doi.org/10.4103/sni.sni_44_17

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Berti F, La Barbera L, Piovesan A et al (2018) Residual stresses in titanium spinal rods: effects of two contouring methods and material plastic properties. J Biomech Eng. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4040451

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Piovesan A, Berti F, Villa T et al (2019) Computational and experimental fatigue analysis of contoured spinal rods. J Biomech Eng. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4042767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Xu M, Yang J, Lieberman IH, Haddas R (2017) Lumbar spine finite element model for healthy subjects: development and validation. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 20:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2016.1193596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Panzer MB, Cronin DS (2009) C4–C5 segment finite element model development, validation, and load-sharing investigation. J Biomech 42:480–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBIOMECH.2008.11.036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schmidt H, Heuer F, Drumm J et al (2007) Application of a calibration method provides more realistic results for a finite element model of a lumbar spinal segment. Clin Biomech 22:377–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CLINBIOMECH.2006.11.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Shirazi-Adl A, Ahmed AM, Shrivastava SC (1986) Mechanical response of a lumbar motion segment in axial torque alone and combined with compression. Spine (Phila Pa) 11:914–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/0268-0033(87)90011-8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhao Y, Zhang S, Sun T et al (2013) Mechanical comparison between lengthened and short sacroiliac screws in sacral fracture fixation: A finite element analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99:601–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OTSR.2013.03.023

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Clariance supported the study in the framework of the CIFRE convention No. 2016/1529, with support of the ANRT (French National Association for Research and Technology).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire ICube, UMR 7357, Unistra–CNRS, Strasbourg University, 2 Rue Boussingault, 67000, Strasbourg, France

    Aleksander Leszczynski, Frank Meyer, Caroline Deck, Nicolas Bourdet & Rémy Willinger

  2. Service de Chirurgie du Rachis, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

    Yann-Philippe Charles

Authors
  1. Aleksander Leszczynski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frank Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yann-Philippe Charles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Caroline Deck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nicolas Bourdet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rémy Willinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aleksander Leszczynski.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Additional information

Communicated by FRANCE.

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 (DOCX 1325 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leszczynski, A., Meyer, F., Charles, YP. et al. Influence of double rods and interbody cages on range of motion and rod stress after spinopelvic instrumentation: a finite element study. Eur Spine J 31, 1515–1524 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07149-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07149-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation