Concave rod first vs. convex rod first in AIS instrumentation with differential rod contouring: computer modeling and simulations based on ten AIS surgical cases.

Creator(s)

Xiaoyu Wang
Richard M. Schwend, Children's Mercy HospitalFollow
Todd Ritzman
Lorena Floccari
Carl-Eric Aubin

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

11-2023

Identifier

DOI: 10.1007/s43390-023-00727-5

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess biomechanical differences between AIS instrumentations using concave vs. convex rod first.

METHODS: Instrumentations of ten AIS patients were simulated first with major correction maneuvers using the concave rod then with convex rod. Correction maneuvers were concave/convex rod translation, followed by apical vertebral derotation and then convex/concave rod translation. The concave/convex rods were 5.5/5.5 and 6.0/5.5 mm diameter Co-Cr and contoured to 35°/15°, 55°/15°, 75°/15° and 85°/15°, respectively.

RESULTS: Differences in simulated thoracic Cobb angle (MT), thoracic kyphosis (TK) and apical vertebral rotation (AVR) were less than 5° between the two techniques; mean bone-screw force difference was less then 15N (p > 0.1). Increasing differential contouring angle from 35°/15° to 85°/15°, the MT changed from 14 ± 7° to 15 ± 8°, AVR from 12 ± 4° to 6 ± 5°, TK from 23 ± 4° to 42 ± 4°, and bone-screw forces from 159 ± 88N to 329 ± 170N (P < 0.05). Increasing the concave rod diameter from 5.5 to 6 mm, the mean MT correction improvement for both techniques was less than 2°, the AVR correction was improved by 2°, the TK increased by 4° and bone-screw force increased by about 25N (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in deformity corrections and bone-screw forces between the two techniques. Increasing differential contouring angle and rod diameter improved AVR and TK corrections with no significant effect on the MT Cobb angle. Although this study simplified the complexity of a generic surgical technique, the main effects of a limited number of identical steps were replicated for each case in a systematic manner to analyze the main first-order effects.

Journal Title

Spine Deform

Volume

11

Issue

6

First Page

1317

Last Page

1324

Keywords

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; Instrumentation; Modeling; Rod contouring; Simulation

Comments

Grants and funding

• IRCPJ 346145-16/Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

Recommended Citation

Wang X, Schwend RM, Ritzman T, Floccari L, Aubin CE. Concave rod first vs. convex rod first in AIS instrumentation with differential rod contouring: computer modeling and simulations based on ten AIS surgical cases. Spine Deform. 2023;11(6):1317-1324. doi:10.1007/s43390-023-00727-5