Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Effects of pre-contoured and in situ contoured rods on the mechanical strength and durability of posterior cervical instrumentation: a finite-element analysis and scanning electron microscopy investigation

  • Biomechanics
  • Published:
Spine Deformity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Study design

Finite-element analysis.

Objectives

Intraoperative contouring of rods is a common procedure for spine surgeons to match the native curvature of the spine, but it may lead to premature weakening of the rod. This study investigated the effect of different bending methods on rod fatigue performance.

Summary of background data

Rod failure in the cervical spine is of clinical concern, particularly when spanning the cervicothoracic region and when considering corrective osteotomies for deformity correction and global spinal alignment.

Methods

Finite-element models were developed to simulate rod bending (3.5 mm D, 40 mm L) to achieve a 23° angle with 3 different bending methods: French single, multiple bending, and in situ bending. Simulations were conducted in 4 steps: rod bending, rod spring back, residual stress relaxation, and F1717 mechanical test simulation.

Results

French single bending resulted in the highest residual stress concentrations for both titanium (TiAlV) and cobalt chrome (CoCr) at 783 MPa and 507 MPa, respectively. During F1717 test simulation, the French single bent rod had its highest tensile stress in the middle, with 917 MPa and 623 MPa, respectively, for TiAlV and CoCr, compared to in situ (580 MPa and 586 MPa for TiAlV and CoCr) and the French multiple bent rod (765 MPa and 619 MPa for TiAlV and CoCr). The computational model found that CoCr rods made the construct least prone to deformation.

Conclusions

French single bend with TiAlV rods put the construct at highest risk of failure. CoCr rods led to minimal physical changes in microstructure while showing evidence of flattening.

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

Access this article

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
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Asher M, Lai SM, Burton D et al (2004) Safety and efficacy of Isola instrumentation and arthrodesis for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: two- to 12-year follow-up. Spine (Phila PA 1976) 29:2013–2023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bridwell KH, Hanson DS, Rhee JM et al (2002) Correction of thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with segmental hooks, rods, and Wisconsin wires posteriorly: it’s bad and obsolete, correct? Spine (Phila PA 1976) 27:2059–2066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. De Maio F, Dolan LA, De Luna V et al (2007) Posterior spine fusion with Moss-Miami instrumentation for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: radiographic, clinical and patient-centered outcomes. Iowa Orthop J 27:28–39

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Gorensek M, Kosak R, Travnik L et al (2013) Posterior instrumentation, anterior column reconstruction with single posterior approach for treatment of pyogenic osteomyelitis of thoracic and lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 22:633–641

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Mikles MR, Stchur RP, Graziano GP (2004) Posterior instrumentation for thoracolumbar fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 12:424–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Remes V, Helenius I, Schlenzka D et al (2004) Cotrel-Dubousset (CD) or Universal Spine System (USS) instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS): comparison of midterm clinical, functional, and radiologic outcomes. Spine (Phila PA 1976) 29:2024–2030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT et al (2005) Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 12: pedicle screw fixation as an adjunct to posterolateral fusion for low-back pain. J Neurosurg Spine 2:700–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rutherford EE, Tarplett LJ, Davies EM et al (2007) Lumbar spine fusion and stabilization: hardware, techniques, and imaging appearances. Radiographics 27:1737–1749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Vialle R, Mary P, Harding I et al (2008) Surgical treatment of severe thoracic scoliosis in skeletally mature patients. Orthopedics 31:218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chapman MW (2001) Chapman’s orthopaedic surgery, 3rd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  11. Niinomi M (2008) Metallic biomaterials. J Artif Organs 11:105–110

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Ames CP et al (2012) Assessment of symptomatic rod fracture after posterior instrumented fusion for adult spinal deformity. Neurosurgery 71:862–867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ames CP, Smith JS, Scheer JK et al (2013) A standardized nomenclature for cervical spine soft-tissue release and osteotomy for deformity correction: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 19:269–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim HJ, Piyaskulkaew C, Riew KD (2015) Comparison of Smith-Petersen osteotomy versus pedicle subtraction osteotomy versus anterior-posterior osteotomy types for the correction of cervical spine deformities. Spine (Phila PA 1976) 40:143–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Yamanaka K, Mori M, Yamazaki K et al (2015) Analysis of the fracture mechanism of Ti–6Al–4V alloy rods that failed clinically after spinal instrumentation surgery. Spine (Phila PA 1976) 40:E767–E773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dick JC, Bourgeault CA (2001) Notch sensitivity of titanium alloy, commercially pure titanium, and stainless steel spinal implants. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:1668–1672

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ashman RB, Birch JG, Bone LB et al (1988) Mechanical testing of spinal instrumentation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 227:113–125

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. ASTM International (2011) ASTM F1717-14: Standard test methods for spinal implant constructs in a vertebrectomy model. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  19. La Barbera L, Galbusera F, Villa T et al (2014) ASTM F1717 standard for the preclinical evaluation of posterior spinal fixators: can we improve it? Proc Inst Mech Eng H 228:1014–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Villa T, La Barbera L, Galbusera F (2014) Comparative analysis of international standards for the fatigue testing of posterior spinal fixation systems. Spine J 14:695–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lindsey C, Deviren V, Xu Z et al (2006) The effects of rod contouring on spinal construct fatigue strength. Spine (Phila PA 1976) 31:1680–1687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Farahmand B, Saff C, Xie D, Abdi F (2007) Estimation of fatigue and fracture allowables for metallic materials under cyclic loading. AIAA-2007-2381. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Honolulu

    Google Scholar 

  23. Nicholas T (1980) Dynamic tensile testing of structural materials using a split Hopkinson bar apparatus. Air Force Wright Aeronautical Labs, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Winegar CD, Lawrence JP, Friel BC et al (2010) A systematic review of occipital cervical fusion: techniques and outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine 13:5–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Deen HG, Nottmeier EW, Reimer R (2006) Early complications of posterior rod-screw fixation of the cervical and upper thoracic spine. Neurosurgery 59:1062–1068

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nguyen TQ, Buckley JM, Ames C et al (2011) The fatigue life of contoured cobalt chrome posterior spinal fusion rods. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 225:194–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tang JA, Leasure JM, Smith JS et al (2013) Effect of severity of rod contour on posterior rod failure in the setting of lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO): a biomechanical study. Neurosurgery 72:276–282 (discussion 283)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hosseini S (2012) Fatigue of Ti–6Al–4V. InTech Open Access Publisher, Rijeka

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Stanford RE, Loefler AH, Stanford PM (2004) Multiaxial pedicle screw designs: static and dynamic mechanical testing. Spine (Phila PA 1976) 29(4):367–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Slivka MA, Fan YK, Eck JC (2013) The effect of contouring on fatigue strength of spinal rods: is it okay to re-bend and which materials are best? Spine Deform 1:395–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding for this study was provided by Globus Medical, Inc. KDK receives royalties from LDR and consulting fees from Spinal USA, Globus Medical, and Covidine; serves on the scientific advisory board for Zimmer Spine; and receives research support from NuVasive, Inc. and Globus Medical. RP receives consulting fees from Precision Spine, Biomet and Mizuho Orthopedic Systems; serves on the scientific advisory board for California Association of Neurological Surgeons; and receives research support from Baxter and Globus Medical. MM, WW, and BSB are paid employees of Globus Medical.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wenhai Wang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

As this study did not involve human subjects, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was not necessary and, therefore, not sought, for the research documented in this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, K.D., Panchal, R., Moldavsky, M. et al. Effects of pre-contoured and in situ contoured rods on the mechanical strength and durability of posterior cervical instrumentation: a finite-element analysis and scanning electron microscopy investigation. Spine Deform 8, 569–576 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-020-00078-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-020-00078-5

Keywords

Navigation