Finite-element analysis on closing-opening correction osteotomy for angular kyphosis of osteoporotic vertebral fractures

BackgroundClosing-opening correction (COC) osteotomy is a useful procedure for severe angular kyphosis. However, there is no previous research on the reconstructed vertebrae with kyphotic malalignment in the presence of osteoporosis. Finite-element (FE) analysis was performed to estimate the biomechanical stress with both osteoporotic grades and corrective kyphotic angles during COC osteotomy for osteoporotic angular kyphosis.MethodsFE models of COC osteotomy were created by changing three major parameters: (1) grade of osteoporosis; (2) kyphotic angle; and (3) compensated posture when standing still. Osteoporosis was graded at four levels: A, normal (nonosteoporotic); B, low-grade osteoporosis; C, middle-grade osteoporosis; D, high-grade osteoporosis. The kyphotic angle ranged from 0° as normal to 15° and 30° as moderate and severe kyphosis, respectively. FE analyses were performed with and without assumed compensated posture in kyphotic models of 15° and 30°. Along each calculated axis of gravity, a 427.4-N load was applied to evaluate the maximum compressive principal stress (CPS) for each model.ResultsThe CPS values for the vertebral element were the highest at the anterior element of T10 in all FE models. The maximum CPS at T10 increased based on the increases in both the grade of osteoporosis and the kyphotic angle. Compensated posture made the maximum CPS value decrease in the 15° and 30° kyphotic models. The highest CPS value was 40.6 MPa in the high-grade osteoporosis (group D) model with a kyphotic angle of 30°. With the normal (nonosteoporotic) group A, the maximum CPS at T10 was relatively low. With middle- and high-grade osteoporosis (groups C and D, respectively), the maximum CPS at T10 was relatively high with or without compensated posture, except for the 0° model.ConclusionsLack of correction in osteoporotic kyphosis leads to an increase in CPS. This biomechanical study proved the advantage of correcting the kyphotic angle to as close as possible to physiological alignment in the thoracolumbar spine, especially in patients with high-grade osteoporosis.

[1]  M M Panjabi,et al.  Biomechanical Evaluation of Spinal Fixation Devices: I. A Conceptual Framework , 1988, Spine.

[2]  F. G. Evans,et al.  The mechanical properties of bone. , 1969, Artificial limbs.

[3]  T. Keaveny,et al.  Quantitative computed tomography estimates of the mechanical properties of human vertebral trabecular bone , 2002, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[4]  Y. Hoshino,et al.  Posterior Spinal Shortening for Paraplegia After Vertebral Collapse Caused by Osteoporosis , 2000, Spine.

[5]  K. Kaneda,et al.  The Treatment of Osteoporotic–Posttraumatic Vertebral Collapse Using the Kaneda Device and a Bioactive Ceramic Vertebral Prosthesis , 1992, Spine.

[6]  M Bernhardt,et al.  Segmental Analysis of the Sagittal Plane Alignment of the Normal Thoracic and Lumbar Spines and Thoracolumbar Junction , 1989, Spine.

[7]  Tadeusz J. Janik,et al.  Prediction of Osteoporotic Spinal Deformity , 2003, Spine.

[8]  T. Keaveny,et al.  Finite Element Modeling of the Human Thoracolumbar Spine , 2003, Spine.

[9]  W C Hayes,et al.  Load Sharing Between the Shell and Centrum in the Lumbar Vertebral Body , 1997, Spine.

[10]  K. Tomita,et al.  The Transmission of Stress to Grafted Bone Inside a Titanium Mesh Cage Used in Anterior Column Reconstruction After Total Spondylectomy: A Finite-Element Analysis , 2005, Spine.

[11]  Juhachi Oda,et al.  Biomechanical evaluation of reconstructed lumbosacral spine after total sacrectomy , 2002, Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association.

[12]  M M Panjabi,et al.  Biomechanical Evaluation of Spinal Fixation Devices: II. Stability Provided by Eight Internal Fixation Devices , 1988, Spine.

[13]  F. Prince,et al.  Comparison of three methods to estimate the center of mass during balance assessment. , 2004, Journal of biomechanics.

[14]  G. Elfström,et al.  Intravital dynamic pressure measurements in lumbar discs. A study of common movements, maneuvers and exercises. , 1970, Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine. Supplement.

[15]  F. Prince,et al.  Comparison of three methods to estimate the center of mass during balance assessment , 2004 .

[16]  H. Baba,et al.  Total en bloc spondylectomy. A new surgical technique for primary malignant vertebral tumors. , 1997 .

[17]  Tadeusz J. Janik,et al.  Can the Thoracic Kyphosis Be Modeled With a Simple Geometric Shape?: The Results of Circular and Elliptical Modeling in 80 Asymptomatic Patients , 2002, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[18]  M. Parnianpour,et al.  Stability of the human spine in neutral postures , 2005, European Spine Journal.

[19]  H. Baba,et al.  Closing-opening wedge osteotomy to correct angular kyphotic deformity by a single posterior approach. , 2001, Spine.

[20]  M. Parnianpour,et al.  Synergy of the human spine in neutral postures , 1998, European Spine Journal.

[21]  A. Nachemson.  Disc Pressure Measurements , 1981, Spine.

[22]  S. Mehta,et al.  An Atypical Presentation of Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis of the Cervical Spine in a Child , 2003, Spine.

[23]  Eiichi Tanaka,et al.  Finite element evaluation of spondylolysis taking account of nonlinear mechanical properties of ligaments and annulus fibrosus , 1999 .

[24]  E. Itoi.  Roentgenographic Analysis of Posture in Spinal Osteoporotics , 1991, Spine.

[25]  K. Yonenobu,et al.  Problems of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for the rheumatoid spondylitis of the lumbar spine , 2002, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.